Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Cognitive Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cogpsych
Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing
limitations influence grammar acquisition
Lucia Pozzan ⇑, John C. Trueswell
University of Pennsylvania, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Accepted 12 March 2015
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Language acquisition
Grammar learning
Sentence processing
Revision
Artificial language learning
a b s t r a c t
We present the results from a three-day artificial language learning
study on adults. The study examined whether sentence-parsing
limitations, in particular, difficulties revising initial syntactic/semantic commitments during comprehension, shape learners’
ability to acquire a language. Findings show that both comprehension and production of morphology pertaining to sentence argument structure are delayed when this morphology consistently
appears at the end, rather than at the beginning, of sentences in
otherwise identical grammatical systems. This suggests that
real-time processing constraints impact acquisition; morphological
cues that tend to guide linguistic analyses are easier to learn than
cues that revise these analyses. Parallel performance in production
and comprehension indicates that parsing constraints affect grammatical acquisition, not just real-time commitments. Properties of
the linguistic system (e.g., ordering of cues within a sentence)
interact with the properties of the cognitive system (cognitive control and conflict-resolution abilities) and together affect language
acquisition.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In order to interpret spoken language, listeners must assign provisional structural analyses to
utterances in real-time as they hear them; that is, they must rapidly categorize unfolding sound
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology & Institute of Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania,
3401 Walnut Street, Suite 422, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States. Fax: +1 215 573 9247.
E-mail address: lpozzan@sas.upenn.edu (L. Pozzan).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
0010-0285/Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
2
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
events into candidate phonemes, syllables, words, and phrases, through some kind of language parsing
mechanism. Yet, for those learning a language, be they a child learning their first language, or an adult
learning additional languages, language-specific rules of categorization are partially or completely
unknown, even though these rules are the very same ones that ultimately permit successful interpretation. This picture is further complicated by the fact that learners’ provisional structural assignments
are not used solely for the purposes of interpretation, but also as input to the learning procedure itself.
For instance, it is now well established that young children learning their first language – and adults
learning a second language – will use their hypothesis about the syntactic structure of a sentence to
constrain hypotheses about the meanings of unknown words and unknown morphemes within that
sentence, in a process known as ‘syntactic bootstrapping’ (e.g., Gillette, Gleitman, Gleitman, &
Lederer, 1999; Gleitman, 1990; Gleitman, Cassidy, Nappa, Papafragou, & Trueswell, 2005; Landau &
Gleitman, 1985; Naigles, 1990; Snedeker & Gleitman, 2004).
It seems then that the structure building mechanism itself (i.e., the real-time parser) would play a
central role in the progression of language acquisition. Yet, relatively little is known about how the
challenges and limitations of real-time parsing in language learners, such as their documented difficulty revising parses (e.g., Trueswell, Sekerina, Hill, & Logrip, 1999), shape acquisition trajectories,
nor how the parsing process itself gets ‘off the ground’ in the first place in the absence of
language-specific grammatical knowledge. Below we begin to explore these two interlocking issues.
We assert that at the start of the learning process, the mapping of utterances onto meaning is guided
by universal biases, which are gradually accompanied or supplanted by language-specific grammatical
knowledge that guides parsing and interpretation more accurately (for related views in the first language acquisition literature see Fisher, Gertner, Scott, & Yuan, 2010; Gertner & Fisher, 2012; Gleitman
et al., 2005; Lidz, Gleitman, & Gleitman, 2003; for second language acquisition, see Van Patten, 1996).
We explore here a novel hypothesis within this view, that the transition from universal biases to the
use of language-specific knowledge is shaped not only by the validity and reliability of
language-specific cues to structure and meaning (Bates & MacWhinney, 1982, 1989; MacWhinney,
Bates, & Kliegl, 1984; Slobin & Bever, 1982), but also by inherent challenges associated with the
real-time incremental nature of sentence processing itself, such as the difficulty of revising initial
structural analyses and interpretations.1
1.1. Parsability and learnability
According to the theory of syntactic bootstrapping, children discover the meanings of words not
just by observing the world and keeping track of world-word contingencies, but also by taking advantage of the linguistic contexts in which words appear (Gleitman, 1990; Landau & Gleitman, 1985).
Children’s ability to use linguistic context during word learning is apparent early in development.
For example, in her classic first studies of the learning effects of implicit syntactic analyses, Naigles
(1990) showed that 25-month-olds infer aspects of a new verb’s meaning from the syntactic context
in which the verb appeared. Exposing children to a novel verb in a transitive sentence (‘‘The duck is
glorping the bunny’’) led children to believe that the novel predicate denoted a two-participant causal
event rather than a one-participant non-causal event. Hearing a novel verb in an intransitive sentence
(‘‘The duck and the bunny are glorping’’) generated the opposite preference, indicating that children
understood the novel predicate to denote a one-participant non-causal event. Numerous studies have
since demonstrated similar syntactic effects on verb learning (e.g., Arunachalam & Waxman, 2010;
Fisher, Hall, Rakowitz, & Gleitman, 1994; Lee & Naigles, 2008; Nappa, Wessell, McEldoon, Gleitman,
& Trueswell, 2009; Scott & Fisher, 2009; Yuan & Fisher, 2009; Yuan, Fisher, & Snedeker, 2012), and
similar use of linguistic evidence has been observed for the learning of nouns (e.g., Brown, 1957;
1
This hypothesis is indebted to related views in the literature, most notably Bever (1970)’s seminal theorizing on the influence
of perceptual strategies on the acquisition and representation of language. Moreover, interactions between processing and
acquisition could have implications for language change and the types of natural language grammars expected to be observed in
the world (see, Bever & Langendoen, 1972, and more recently, Hawkins, 2004, 2012, 2014); these views are compatible and
partially overlapping with our present proposal (see Section 3).
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
3
Hall, Lee, & Bélanger, 2001; Katz, Baker, & MacNamara, 1974; Liittschwager & Markman, 1993; Smith,
Jones, & Landau, 1992).
To take one especially relevant example, 19-month-olds who heard the novel word ‘‘tiv’’ while
watching a scene in which a cloth was used to wipe a block assigned it a different meaning depending
on whether the novel word was used as the complement of the verb (as in (1)) or as the complement
of the preposition (as in (2)).
(1)
(2)
Meek the tiv
Meek with the tiv
Children’s looking patterns, in fact, indicate that they interpreted ‘‘tiv’’ to refer to the block if they
heard it used as the complement of the verb (as in (1)), but to the cloth if they heard it used as the
complement of the preposition (as in (2), see White, Baier, & Lidz, 2011; Lidz, White, & Baier,
submitted for publication).
The ability to use structural cues to pair novel words with their intended referents is often contingent upon having some detailed language-specific knowledge. In the previous example, target-like
performance depends upon the child having acquired a number of facts about English vocabulary
and grammar, including the structural properties and the meaning of the preposition ‘‘with.’’ So
how do learners map structures to meanings at the beginning of the language acquisition process,
when language-specific knowledge is not yet in place?
According to the theory of syntactic bootstrapping, children initially accomplish this task by taking
advantage of universal, unlearned, biases to map structure to meaning (Fisher, 1996; Gleitman, 1990;
Gleitman et al., 2005; Lidz et al., 2003). At the beginning of the learning process, when
language-specific knowledge is not yet in place, learners are thus hypothesized to rely on unlearned
biases to construct partial, underspecified, structural sentence representations which are mapped to
events in the world. Note that from a processing perspective, these biases can be thought of as universal parsing heuristics, which are most likely deployed in real-time by the child as each utterance is
perceived.2 As language-specific cues to structure and meaning begin to be acquired by the child, these
too enter into the word learning process as additional structural constraints on interpretation.
One such universal bias (derived from the Theta Criterion of Chomsky, 1981) is the tendency to
expect a transparent one-to-one mapping between the number of arguments in a clause (roughly,
noun phrases, NPs) and the number of thematic roles (roughly, participants) in an event. Children
as young as 21 months use the number of NPs in a sentence as a proxy for the number of participants,
with the consequence that they misinterpret sentences in which the number of NPs does not match
the number of participants. For instance, Gertner and Fisher (2012) found that younger
(21-month-old) children have a tendency to misinterpret conjoined subject intransitive sentences
(like the sentence used by Naigles, 1990, ‘‘The duck and the bunny are glorping’’) as transitive SOV
sentences, in part because they do not yet know how the language specific cues of the conjunction
‘‘and’’ and plural agreement from ‘‘are’’ map onto the correct structural analysis (though see also
Noble, Theakston, & Lieven, 2010; Pozzan, Gleitman, & Trueswell, in press, for other challenges related
to this structure). Children are also more willing than adults to alter the meaning of familiar verbs to
match the NP contexts in which they are heard: children, but not adults, act out causative interpretations for the familiar intransitive go, when it is presented within a two-NP transitive context like
‘‘Noah goes the elephant to the ark’’ (Naigles, Fowler, & Helm, 1992; Naigles, Gleitman, & Gleitman,
1993).3
2
We do not commit ourselves to the exact origin of these biases, such as whether they originate in Universal Grammar, or are
better characterized as coming from a set of universal parsing/processing heuristics. One reasonable view is that the parser, as
implemented in any state of development, must respect both universal and learned constraints on language representation (for
discussion, see, e.g., Chomsky, 1964; Fodor, Bever, & Garrett, 1974; Pritchett, 1992). Predictions based on the account sketched in
this paper do not hinge on the origin of these universal tendencies, and our manipulation and results are not meant to address this
issue further.
3
Other evidence in favor of the universal, unlearned nature of this bias comes from studies investigating learners who display
this bias without having been exposed to biased input. The number of noun phrases in a sentence has in fact been shown to be used
as a strong predictor of argument structure in the spontaneous gesture systems (home sign) of congenitally deaf children who
were not exposed to sign language (e.g., Feldman, Goldin-Meadow, & Gleitman, 1978; Goldin-Meadow, 2003).
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
4
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Children’s bias to expect as many event participants as NPs in a sentence has even been found for
languages in which argument omission is frequent (e.g., Mandarin, see Lee & Naigles, 2008; Kannada,
see Lidz et al., 2003). Lidz and colleagues examined children’s performance on a sentence comprehension task in Kannada, a language in which verbal morphology is a reliable predictor of argument structure but, due to frequent argument omission, number of NPs is not. Children learning this language
consistently mapped one-NP sentences to one-participant events and two-NP sentences to
two-participant events, while ignoring the presence of conflicting morphological information.
Differently from adults, children tended to assign the same (non-causative) interpretation to
one-NP sentences, regardless of the presence (3) or absence (4) of causative morphology that perfectly
predicts a two-participant causative interpretation.
(3)
Kudure
Horse
eer-is-utt-ade
rise-caus-non-past-3sg
(4)
Kudure
Horse
eer-utt-ade
rise-non-past-3sg
Returning to our example in (2) involving the preposition ‘‘with,’’ the account just given predicts that a
learner who has not yet acquired the meaning and structural properties of the preposition ‘‘with’’
might construe the novel NP ‘‘the tiv’’ as the argument of the verb and assign it the thematic role ‘‘patient’’; relying on universal structure-to-meaning mapping biases would thus cause the learner not
only to misinterpret the message, but also to map the novel noun onto the wrong referent (i.e., to pair
it with the block in both (1) and (2)). To the extent that this is true, it becomes crucial to understand
the mechanisms and evidence that learners use to substitute universal structure-to-meaning mapping
biases with full-fledged language-specific syntactic and semantic rules, such that structures that do
not conform to universal tendencies (e.g., sentences with omitted arguments) or to the majority patterns in the language (e.g., passive sentences in English), but are nonetheless licensed by the grammar
of the language, can be successfully parsed and interpreted.
Arguably, the real world can provide learners with evidence that they can use to detect eventual
mismatches between their interpretations and the state of affairs in the world, and update their current hypotheses accordingly (see Chang, Dell, & Bock, 2006, for an error-based acquisition model in
which mismatches between the model’s prediction and the actual input are used to update the model’s abstract knowledge, or the variational model proposed by Yang, e.g., Yang, 2002, 2004, 2012, in
which possible grammars are rewarded or punished according to their ability to analyze the input).
For example, suppose that a learner who ignores the function and the structural properties of the
preposition ‘‘with’’ heard it in a sentential context like (5) in which all the other vocabulary items were
known, while watching a scene in which a girl was eating a cake with a spoon:
(5)
The girl is eating with the spoon
Here the universal biases discussed above would not only lead to an implausible interpretation
(girl-eating-spoon), but to a mismatch between the learner’s hypothesis and the co-occurring event
in the world. The learner could in principle use this mismatch to reject its current grammatical analysis, and use properties of the observed event to inform a new hypothesis (i.e., ‘‘with’’ combines with
NPs; the NP it combines with bears the thematic relation ‘‘instrument’’). This new hypothesis can be
used to parse the next utterance containing the target structure, and additional linguistic and real
world evidence can be used to further refine this hypothesis.
In this paper, we propose that this learning process, which allows learners to integrate or substitute
universal biases with language-specific knowledge, is influenced by the constraints and limitations of
the (developing) parser. Our prediction is that language-specific cues to structure and meaning are
easier to acquire and use in real time if the information that they provide can be used to prevent
the parser from committing to incorrect interpretations that might need to be revised based on
late-arriving evidence within the same sentence. This hypothesis stems from the well-known fact that
revising initial interpretative commitments is difficult for learners (for L1 acquisition, including
languages other than English, see Choi & Trueswell, 2010; Hurewitz, Brown-Schmidt, Thorpe,
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
5
Gleitman, & Trueswell, 2000; Omaki & Lidz, 2015; Omaki, Davidson White, Goro, Lidz, & Phillips, 2014;
Huang, Zheng, Meng, & Snedeker, 2013; Trueswell et al., 1999; Weighall, 2008; and for L2 acquisition
in adults, see Pozzan & Trueswell, 2013; Williams, Möbius, & Kim, 2001).
To illustrate in more detail, consider the hypothetical case of a learner who used the mismatch
between the real world and her interpretation of (5) to infer a tentative, target-like meaning for
‘‘with.’’ Assuming this hypothesis is available to the learner on next encounter with the word ‘‘with,’’
(as in (6)) she will expect it to be followed by a NP, which will be correctly interpreted as an
instrument:
(6)
Clean[PP with the cloth]
The learner’s current hypothesis regarding the meaning of ‘‘with’’ will be reinforced in this case, provided that real world evidence supports (or at least doesn’t mismatch with) this interpretation.
But what if, instead of English, our learner were acquiring one of the many world’s languages in
which words that convey this information appear post-nominally (e.g., as post-positions or suffixes),
as in (7), rather than pre-nominally, as in (6)?
(7)
Clean [PP the cloth with]
We predict that in this case, upon encountering the NP ‘‘cloth,’’ the (real-time) parser will initially analyze it as the direct object of the verb ‘‘clean,’’ and incorrectly interpret it as the patient of the predicate. In order for (7) to be interpreted correctly, this interpretation will need to be revised once ‘‘with’’
is heard. That is, even when a target meaning hypothesis for ‘‘with’’ is in place, this hypothesis can
only be used to revise a preliminary structure and a partial interpretation (‘‘clean the cloth’’), once
‘‘with’’ is processed. But revising initial interpretations is precisely what the developing parser often
fails to do; interpretations consistent with failures to revise, in fact, account on average for 50–60% of
children’s interpretation of temporarily ambiguous sentences (e.g., Trueswell et al., 1999).
Probabilistically, then, children would be less likely to discover the intended syntactic analysis of this
sentence, with the consequence that the learning of the meaning of ‘‘with’’ would be delayed.
Thus sentences in which disambiguating information arrives at a point in which it can no longer be
easily integrated with the previous material will not only be misinterpreted by the novice learner, but
might also fail to provide the learner with evidence to update their syntactic and semantic hypotheses,
potentially delaying the acquisition process. An important corollary of this hypothesis is that acquisition might proceed at slower rates in languages in which function words and morphemes that carry
disambiguating grammatical information become available at a point in which the parser has already
committed to an incorrect interpretation. In fact, there is some suggestive evidence to support this
claim: children learning Tagalog, a verb-initial language in which argument omission is pervasive
but verbal morphology is a reliable predictor of argument structure, show greater sensitivity to causative morphology than children learning Kannada, a verb-final, morphology-final language, perhaps
because verbal morphology can be used to guide parsing in verb-initial languages but only confirm or
revise interpretative commitments in verb-final languages (Trueswell, Kaufman, Hafri, & Lidz, 2012).
Similar difficulties with causative morphology in children have been reported for other verb-final
languages (e.g., Turkish: Göksun, Küntay, & Naigles, 2008; Japanese: Murasugi, Hasimoto, & Kato, 2004).
Unfortunately the direct cross-linguistic comparison by Trueswell et al. (2012) is far from conclusive. First, Tagalog and Kannada have very different grammatical and morphological systems, leaving
open the possibility that the superior performance shown by Tagalog-speaking children was
modulated by other grammatical differences. Second, children’s comprehension—not production—of
morphology was surveyed, leaving open the possibility that the challenges observed in
Kannada-speaking children as compared to Tagalog-speaking children reflected their difficulties revising initial interpretations rather than these difficulties impacting the acquisition of the morphology
itself. In other words, the results are consistent with the alternative hypothesis that the
Kannada-speaking children knew the function of causative morphology in the language, but were
not able to deploy this knowledge in garden-path sentences. The more crucial question is whether
such difficulties delay the learning of the meaning of morphology, and thus delay use even when
revision is not required, such as in sentence production.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
6
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Since it is highly unlikely that we could compare acquisition profiles in two natural languages that
differ only in the respects relevant to our research question, we opted for the next best thing: an
artificial-language learning study in which learners attempt to determine how sentence structure connects to events and actions perceived in a co-present referent world (e.g., Hudson Kam & Newport,
2005, 2009; Wonnacott, Newport, & Tanenhaus, 2008). Within this method, we can nearly perfectly
match the grammars of several languages, assign them to different learners, and parametrically
manipulate whether language-specific cues to structure in a language are available early in a sentence,
and hence can guide interpretation, or are available only late in a sentence, and hence confirm or
revise interpretations. Given the growing body of evidence showing that this methodology can be successfully employed to investigate learners’ acquisition and preferences for different grammatical patterns attested in the world’s languages (e.g., Culbertson, Smolensky, & Legendre, 2012; Fedzechkina,
Jaeger, & Newport, 2012), it seems that artificial-language learning studies can be used as a powerful
complement to cross-linguistic research to investigate preferences and biases in language acquisition
in the laboratory.
The present work focuses on the performance of adult learners;4 future work will examine children.
There are however good reasons to believe that child and adult learners’ grammar acquisition might be
affected in similar ways by processing preferences and limitations. For instance, even native-speaker
adults sometimes fail to revise initial parsing commitments (Novick, Thompson-Schill, & Trueswell,
2008; Trueswell et al., 1999), and rely on ‘good enough’ sentence interpretations under certain circumstances (e.g., Christianson, Williams, Zacks, & Ferreira, 2006; Ferreira, Ferraro, & Bailey, 2002; Ferreira &
Patson, 2007). Moreover, the consequences of processing limitations might be exaggerated in adult second language learners, a population that has also been found to have particular difficulties revising initial
interpretations (e.g., Juffs, 2004; Juffs & Harrington, 1996; Pozzan & Trueswell, 2013; Roberts & Felser,
2011; Williams et al., 2001). All of these challenges, in children and adults, may actually stem from difficulties deploying executive function/cognitive control, which is underdeveloped in children (Zelazo &
Frye, 1998), and might be particularly taxed during the processing of a non-native language
(Abutalebi, 2008). We will return to this issue in Section 3.
Adults learning a second language (in this case, an artificial language) are of course likely to differ
in some ways from children acquiring a first language. For instance, adults’ knowledge of their native
language, most notably their knowledge of language-specific grammatical tendencies and parsing procedures, is likely to be transferred to their second language (for reviews, see Gass & Selinker, 1992;
Pienemann, Di Biase, Kawaguchi, & Håkansson, 2005). But, as we discuss below, comparisons of several variants of an artificial language permit us to identify such language-specific strategies, should
they exist in our study.
1.2. Experimental prospectus
In order to investigate the hypothesis that the challenges associated with parsing revision shape
the way in which language learners acquire language-specific cues to meaning, we designed an experiment in which adult participants were exposed to one of four miniature-language variants during a
three-day study. In all variants, the number of NPs in a sentence was not a reliable predictor of a predicate’s argument structure. However, similarly to Tagalog and Kannada, morphological cues were
instead reliable predictors. Specifically, one morpheme (‘‘-ka’’) was always associated with an event
involving a patient and an instrument while a different morpheme (‘‘-tu’’) was always associated with
an event involving only a patient, regardless of the presence of one or two NPs in the sentence. Thus to
correctly interpret a sentence, learners needed to refrain from relying on a cue that tends to be highly
predictive of argument structure across languages in general, and in the learners’ L1 in particular, but
is unreliable in the target language (i.e., the number of NPs in a sentence); they had to start relying
4
In artificial-language learning experiments it is customary to test adult participants because, compared to children, they can be
administered longer training/testing sessions and thus be taught artificial languages with larger vocabularies; moreover, adults
have been shown to be more adept at learning new vocabulary from exposure to sentences in artificial-language learning studies
(see Hudson Kam & Newport, 2005).
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
7
instead on a cue that is absent in their L1 but perfectly predictive of argument structure in the target
language (i.e., morphological cues).
The language variants differed with respect to the point at which morphological cues to argument
structure would be heard in each sentence: either at the beginning (as a suffix on the first constituent)
or at the end (as a suffix on the last constituent). This allowed us to test the experimental hypothesis
that the characteristics of the human sentence parser (i.e., incremental processing, tendency to rapidly
commit to interpretations, and difficulties revising initial interpretations) affect the time-course of
grammar acquisition. We predicted that, in the absence of language-specific knowledge about the
novel linguistic system (i.e., at the beginning of the study), learners will initially use the number of
NPs in a sentence to infer the number of participants in an event, but will abandon this strategy with
increased exposure to the language. Critically, however, the language variants in which disambiguating morphological information became available early in each sentence should be associated with faster learning curves and higher accuracy than the variants in which the same information was heard
late in each sentence. Note that, as discussed below in Section 2.1.2.2, we created two early-cue
and two late-cue language variants, each of which differed in whether they were similar or different
to English in terms of word order; this permitted us to document (and control for) possible effects of
native-language transfer.
Language exposure consisted of watching pre-recorded video interactions between two actors. One
of the actors uttered a command in the language, and the other actor acted out the command. The participant’s task was simply to repeat the command after watching the action being performed.
Learners’ comprehension and production of the language was assessed on each day in separate tests
in which participants acted out spoken instructions or described perceived actions without the aid of
linguistic input. At the end of the study learners were asked to indicate the meaning of the two different morphemes employed in the language.
2. Experimental investigation
2.1. Methods
2.1.1. Participants
A total of 73 adults were recruited from the Psychology 001 pool at the University of Pennsylvania
and from the community. The former received credit for their participation (4 credits), while the latter
received $10 per session ($30 total).
Inclusion criteria were set to include only participants who had successfully mastered the
content-word vocabulary of the language by the last day of the study (Day 3): only participants
who showed evidence of having learned all twelve nouns and at least six out of the eight verbs in
the language were included in the final analyses. Verbs and nouns were considered ‘‘learned’’ if they
were used accurately on at least 75% of the cases in which they occurred in both tests of comprehension and production (see below for details of these tests). A language-background criterion was also
employed. Bilingual speakers were excluded because they might present an advantage in novel word
learning with respect to their monolingual peers (Kaushanskaya & Marian, 2009), and might employ
mechanisms to switch from a dominant to a non-dominant language that differ in nature from those
used by non-bilinguals (Costa & Santesteban, 2004).
These criteria resulted in the exclusion of 25 participants; the data from the remaining 48 participants, twelve for each of the four language variants, were included in the final analyses reported
below. The 25 excluded participants were dropped for: not meeting the monolingual requirement
(N = 5), failure to reach mastery of the language’s content-word vocabulary (N = 8 and N = 5 in
late-cue and early-cue languages, respectively), failure to return for the second or third sessions
(N = 1 and N = 3, respectively), experimenter’s error (N = 1), failure to follow directions (N = 1), and
systematically reversing the meaning of the two morphemes during the final session (N = 1).
2.1.2. Materials and design
2.1.2.1. Vocabulary. Every language variant contained twelve novel nouns and eight novel verbs. The
referents of verbs and nouns were fixed across participants. There were no determiners in the
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
8
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
language. Each NP was composed of two syllables and referred to either a stuffed animal or an inanimate object: ‘‘fami’’ (dophin), ‘‘fofo’’ (cow), ‘‘lepa’’ (frog), ‘‘naki’’ (pig), ‘‘poru’’ (bear), ‘‘tato’’ (horse),
‘‘kefu’’ (tweezers), ‘‘nunu’’ (clothespin), ‘‘pala’’ (pliers), ‘‘supo’’ (spoon), ‘‘sati’’ (sticks), ‘‘tufa’’ (toothbrush). All verbs were transitive and composed of two syllables. Experimental verbs, four in total,
referred to actions that can be performed with an instrument or the hand: ‘‘bliki’’ (lift), ‘‘daxi’’ (turn),
‘‘glemi’’ (shake), ‘‘zumpi’’ (bounce). Filler verbs referred to actions that cannot be performed with a
hand/instrument: ‘‘bobu’’ (blow on), ‘‘mefi’’ (look at), ‘‘pema’’ (say ‘ba’ to), ‘‘tiki’’ (stick tongue out at).
2.1.2.2. Morphology and morpho-syntax. The languages contained two suffixes, ‘‘-ka’’ and ‘‘-tu’’, which
were associated with two different versions of a given event (e.g., a human agent causes a toy dolphin
to bounce up and down). The morpheme ‘‘-ka’’ was always used when a given event involved the use
of an instrument to perform an action on a patient (e.g., the agent causes the toy dolphin to bounce up
and down using a clothespin), while the morpheme ‘‘-tu’’ was always used in association with an
event that involved only a patient and not an instrument (e.g., the agent causes the toy dolphin to
bounce up and down using her hands).
To test the experimental hypothesis that the order with which morphological cues appear in a sentence influences the ease with which they are processed and acquired, we constructed two language
variants in which morphological cues to argument structure (‘‘-ka’’ and ‘‘-tu’’) were consistently
expressed as suffixes on the verb, but, depending on the variant, the verb was either the first or the last
constituent in the sentence. Both variants were thus verb-marking (more precisely, head-marking) languages, but differed with respect to the position of the verb in the sentence, and, consequently, its morphological cues. This is illustrated below using a 2-NP sentence example where the verb carrying the
instrument marker ‘‘-ka’’ either appears clause-initially (as in I.) or clause-finally (as in II.):
I.
VMORPH NP NP
Verb-Initial, Verb-Marking Language:
Zumpi-ka
fami
nunu
Bounce-instrument
dolphin
clothespin
‘Bounce the dolphin using the clothespin’
II.
NP NP VMORPH
Verb-Final, Verb-Marking Language
Nunu
fami
zumpi-ka
Clothespin
dolphin
bounce-instrument
‘Bounce the dolphin using the clothespin’
A potential shortcoming of this design was that the language variant in (I) resembles English word order
more closely than the language variant in (II), thus potentially confounding the effects that cue ordering
might have on acquisition with those related to L1-transfer. For this reason, we constructed two additional
language variants, which are illustrated in (III) and (IV) below. In these two additional language variants,
morphological cues were consistently expressed as a suffix on (inanimate) NPs; depending on the language
variant, the inanimate NP was either the first or the last constituent in the sentence. Both variants were thus
noun-marking (or, more precisely, dependent-marking) languages, but differed from each other with
respect to the position of the verb and morphological cues in the sentence, as summarized below:
III.
NPMORPH NP V
Nunu-ka
Clothespin-instrument
Verb-Final, Noun-Marking Language
fami
zumpi
dolphin
bounce
IV.
V NP NPMORPH
Zumpi
Bounce
Verb-Initial, Noun-Marking Language
fami
nunu-ka
dolphin
clothespin-instrument
In this case, the variant that most resembles English in terms of word-order (IV) is now the one in
which disambiguating morphological cues appeared late in the sentence. For this second language
pair, then, the predictions of the experimental hypothesis go in the opposite direction from those of
facilitatory L1-transfer. The experimental hypothesis predicts (IV) to be associated with slower
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
9
learning and lower accuracy rates than (III), since morphological cues appear sentence-finally in the
former and sentence-initially in the latter, while the opposite outcome should arise due to facilitatory
L1-transfer.
In the remainder of the paper, we will investigate the extent to which comprehension and production performance is influenced by the order in which disambiguating morphological information
becomes available in a sentence. For ease of exposition, we will refer to languages in which disambiguating morphological information to argument structure appears early in the sentence (i.e., variants (I) and (III) above) as early-cue languages and to languages in which the same information
appears late in the sentence (i.e., variants (II) and (IV)) as late-cue languages, regardless of the position
of the verb (verb-initial vs. verb-final) and the syntactic category with which the morphological cue
combined (the verb vs. the NP).
2.1.2.3. Sentential constructions. All sentences in the languages expressed commands given by an actor
to a second person interlocutor. Second person subjects were always non-overt, similarly to English
non-emphatic imperative clauses (e.g., You, Pass me the salt! You, Open the window!). Commands
expressed by experimental sentences were to be carried out either with an instrument or the hands,
depending on the morphological marker. Half of the experimental sentences contained one NP and
half contained two NPs. The number of NPs in a sentence did not predict whether the action should
be carried out with an instrument; only morphology did. We achieved this by employing two devices:
(i) redundant NP-modification and (ii) argument omission. Redundant NP modification refers to the
over-specification of a referent’s attribute in a context in which the attribute is not contrastive (e.g.,
the attribute ‘‘blue’’ when the phrase ‘‘the blue cloth’’ is uttered in the presence of one cloth, as
opposed to a context in which there are a blue and a red cloth). Adult English listeners behave in
accordance with the tenets of Referential Theory (Altmann & Steedman, 1988) and expect additional
information about a referent to be mentioned if and only if the information is necessary to establish
reference. We thus expected that sentences like (8), where the NP-modifier ‘‘with the clothespin’’ is
redundant due to the absence of a competing referent (e.g., a dolphin holding a spoon),5 would systematically lead listeners to an incorrect (instrument) interpretation if reliable morphological information
were ignored. Argument omission refers to the omission of an obligatory argument of a given predicate
(e.g., the omission of the patient NP in the sentence ‘‘wipe with the cloth’’). In English, argument omission is lexically and contextually constrained in that it only occurs with a small subset of verbs (compare
‘‘I ate’’ with ⁄‘‘I hugged’’), and only under specific discourse conditions, i.e., low discourse prominence
(Goldberg, 2001). For this reason, we expected that sentences like (11), in which the patient NP is omitted but omission is not associated with particular discourse properties,6 would systematically lead listeners to an incorrect interpretation if reliable morphological information were ignored. In contrast,
sentences like (9) and (10) exemplify cases in which the number of NPs in the sentence is instead aligned
with the number of participants/thematic relations in the event; in these cases failure to use morphological information should not be systematically associated with misinterpretations.
(8)
Zumpi-tu
fami
nunu
Non Instrument Morphology – 2 NPs
Bounce-non-instrument dolphin
clothespin
Meaning: ‘‘Use your hands to bounce the dolphin, which has the clothespin’’
(9)
Zumpi-ka
fami
nunu
Instrument Morphology – 2 NPs
Bounce-instrument
dolphin
clothespin
Meaning: ‘‘Use the clothespin to bounce the dolphin’’
5
NP modifiers were always used redundantly in the language, since it was never the case that two referents of the same type but
holding different instruments appeared in the same trial.
6
In order to make argument omission licensing as similar as possible to what is found in natural languages, the underlying
regularity in the language was that the omitted patient was always the referent that was mentioned last during the naming of all
the objects in the visual display that took place at the beginning of each trial, right before the command was spoken (see
Section 2.1.4).
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
10
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
(10)
Zumpi-tu
nunu
Non Instrument Morphology – 1 NP
Bounce-non-instrument clothespin
Meaning: ‘‘Use your hands to bounce the clothespin’’
(11)
Zumpi-ka
nunu
Instrument Morphology – 1 NP
Bounce-instrument
clothespin
Meaning: ‘‘Use the clothespin to bounce something’’
While care was taken to ensure that the grammars of verb-marking and noun-marking language variants were matched as closely as possible, the function of the morphological markers and their distribution differed slightly between them. This is due to the nature of the syntactic category that the
morphological markers combined with (verbs vs. nouns): in verb-marking languages, the morpheme
‘‘-ka’’ indicated that the action described by the verb was to be carried out with an instrument, and the
morpheme ‘‘-tu’’ indicated that the same action should be carried out with the hands (see Table 1 in
the Appendix for the complete paradigm of the four sentence constructions in each of the four language variants). In languages in which morphological markers combined with nouns, rather than
verbs, the markers functioned as case markers, and indicated the syntactic function/thematic role of
the noun they combined with. Thus the morphological marker ‘‘-ka’’ indicated that the noun functioned as an instrument (‘‘Nunu-ka [clothespin-instrument] fami [dolphin] zumpi [bounce]’’, i.e.,
‘Bounce the dolphin using the clothespin’), while the morphological marker ‘‘-tu’’ indicated that the
noun functioned as an NP-modifier (‘‘Nunu-tu [clothespin-modifier] fami zumpi’’, i.e., ‘Bounce the dolphin that has the clothespin’). Since ‘‘-tu’’ in these variants functioned as an NP modifier, it was not
present on non-instrument 1-NP sentences (‘‘Nunu zumpi’’, i.e., ‘Bounce the clothespin’). Given that
the crucial comparisons in our study involved contrasting differences in performance associated with
early-cue and late-cue variants of the same language, rather than comparing between verb-marking
and noun-marking languages, this difference was not expected to impact our findings.
Experimental sentences like those above were intermixed with filler sentences, which represented
half of the materials in the study (see Table 2 in the Appendix for examples of fillers in the four language variants). Fillers were included because pilot testing indicated that, when only sentences that
highlighted the target morphological contrast were presented, participants became quickly aware of
the manipulation and reached ceiling performance within the first training session, thus making it
impossible to investigate learning curves. Filler materials consisted of actions that were not to be carried out with either an instrument or the hands, but with another body part (i.e., the mouth: ‘‘bobu’’
[blow-on]; ‘‘pema’’ [say-‘ba’-to]; ‘‘tiki’’ [stick-tongue-out-at]; the eyes: ‘‘mefi’’ [look-at]). These sentences contained either two, one or no NPs, as exemplified in Table 2 in the Appendix for the four language variants;7 filler sentences resembled experimental sentences in that the number of NPs in a
sentence did not predict the number of predicate arguments.
2.1.3. Procedure
A three-day procedure was followed. Training took place on Days 1 and 2, together with two short
testing phases, while Day 3 was dedicated to testing. Participants were tested individually in a quiet,
dimly lit room. Participants were seated in a chair positioned in front of a desk (where a podium
would be placed for the ‘‘comprehension’’ portion of the experiment) at a comfortable distance from
the wall (where videos would be projected for the training and production portions of the
7
In verb-marking languages, the morpheme -tu was associated with actions performed by hand, rather than with the absence of
an instrument. This becomes clear if we compare experimental non-instrument sentences in (8) and (10) with the filler examples
(see Appendix): actions performed without an instrument but with a body part different from the hands were associated with the
bare form of the verb (i.e., no morphological marker), rather than the morpheme -tu. In contrast, in noun-marking languages, due
to the slightly different syntactic function of the morphological markers, the marker -tu (indicating NP-modification) and the
zero-marker (associated with patient NPs) occurred in both experimental and filler sentences, and thus indicated that a given
action should not be associated with an instrument; the meaning of the lexical verb alone indicated whether the action should be
carried out with the hands (e.g., lift, bounce) or a different body part (e.g., look-at, say-‘ba’-to).
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
11
experiment). Words and sentences were pre-recorded by a male native speaker of English and delivered via audio speakers.
2.1.3.1. Day 1.
2.1.3.1.1. Noun vocabulary training and testing. Participants saw videos in which an
actor, seen from the back, named a single object while an actress, seen from the front, pointed (correctly) to one of four props placed on each of the quadrants of a podium (see Fig. 1). In each display,
there were always two animals (not holding any instruments) placed diagonally from each other and
two big instruments, but only one of the props was named. Participants were instructed to repeat
aloud the name of each object after each pointing action. Each of the 12 objects was named four times
during the training phase. Participants then received a short vocabulary comprehension test in which
they saw a set of 12 novel arrays of objects and heard each NP spoken aloud once by the actor. They
were instructed to select the correct object by clicking with the mouse on a static image of the display
projected on the wall. After each response, they received non-corrective feedback, i.e., they saw a
pre-recorded video showing the correct pointing action, regardless of the accuracy of their own
response. Finally, participants saw 12 new videos in which the actress pointed to each object once;
participants were instructed to provide the name of each object. They received non-corrective feedback, i.e., they heard a recording of the male actor naming the object, after each attempt.
2.1.3.1.2. Sentence Training I. Participants saw videos in which an actor, seen from the back, named
all the props on the podium while an actress pointed at them. Visual displays always contained two
inanimate objects (e.g., regular-sized spoon and tweezers) and two animals, each holding a miniature
version of one of the regular-sized instruments (e.g., a small spoon; small tweezers). Thus for a display
containing a big spoon, a frog holding a small spoon, a pair of big tweezers, and a horse holding small
tweezers, the subject would hear ‘‘supo’’, ‘‘supo’’, ‘‘lepa’’, ‘‘pala’’, ‘‘pala’’, ‘‘tato’’ accompanied by the
appropriate pointing to each object.8 The position of the first-named objects was counterbalanced
across videos (e.g., lower left, upper right, etc.). This was done so that the last object named in this phase
– the target omitted patient in sentences like (11) – was not associated to a fixed position in the display.
After each prop was named, the actor gave a spoken command to the actress, who then carried out the
corresponding action (for a video examples of Sentence Training items, see http://www.ircs.upenn.edu/
~truesweb/tulka_link.html). Participants viewed 16 videos paired with 16 sentences (i.e., two sentences
per verb). They were instructed to repeat each sentence out loud after the end of each video presentation
(i.e., after the actress had carried out the action; see Section 3 for the possible learning implications of
this presentation order, i.e., hearing a sentence then seeing the action rather than the other way around.)
No corrective feedback was provided. Each experimental verb was presented in two of the four possible
constructions exemplified above. Each experimental construction was thus exemplified twice: two of the
experimental verbs were presented in the constructions exemplified in (8) and (11) above, while the
remaining two verbs were presented in the constructions exemplified in (9) and (10) above. These constructions were paired because they do not represent minimal sentence pairs. The order of presentation
was kept constant across all learners.
2.1.3.1.3. Short testing: sentence comprehension. An inclined podium was placed in front of the participant at the beginning of this phase. At the center of the podium was a hole for a camera, which was
focused on the participant’s eyes. At the beginning of each trial, an experimenter would position a
prop in each of the quadrants of the podium to match the position of the same props in the video being
projected on the wall (Fig. 2). Each object was pointed at and named by the actors in the video. The
trial began with a written English instruction prompting the participant to look at the center of the
podium. The participant then heard a command in the new language and carried out an action in
response to it. A second camera recorded the participants’ actions and the position of the objects on
the podium. No feedback was given regarding the accuracy of the participant’s action. Participants
viewed 16 videos (half experimental, half filler) paired with 16 sentences (i.e., two sentences per verb).
Each verb was presented in the two constructions in which it was not presented during Sentence
Training I.
8
Animals in Sentence Training and Sentence Testing videos always held small instruments. The instrument was always named
before the animal. The actress never used the small instruments, which were glued to the plush animals, to carry out actions, nor
did any of the subjects do so during test.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
12
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Still frame example for Noun Vocabulary Training videos.
2.1.3.1.4. Sentence Training II. Participants saw 16 videos paired with 16 commands (two sentences
per verb). As before, they were instructed to repeat each sentence aloud at the end of each video presentation. Each experimental verb was presented in the two constructions in which it was not presented during Sentence Training I.
2.1.3.1.5. Short testing: sentence production. Participants saw 16 videos in which the actress performed an action, but the command spoken by the actor had been replaced by a beep. The participant’s
task was to guess the original command. Participants’ responses were recorded via a digital recorder.
2.1.3.2. Day 2. The main differences between Day 1 and Day 2 were that (a) there was no vocabulary
training on Day 2, (b) the order of the Sentence Comprehension and the Sentence Production tasks was
switched, and (c) a new set of videos and corresponding sentences were employed.
2.1.3.2.1. Vocabulary testing. Participants did not receive any training on the nouns of the language,
but were tested on their comprehension and production. The Comprehension and Production tests
were exactly like the ones on Day 1, but a new set of videos was used.
2.1.3.2.2. Sentence Training I. The training procedure was the same as the one used on Day 1, except
that we used a new set of videos and sentences. As on Day 1, each experimental verb was presented in
two of the four possible constructions. Two of the experimental verbs were presented in the constructions exemplified in (8) and (11) above, while the remaining two verbs were presented in the constructions exemplified in (9) and (10) above; each experimental construction was thus exemplified
twice. If a verb had been presented in the constructions exemplified in (8) and (11) on Day 1 –
Sentence Training I, it would be presented here in the constructions exemplified in (9) and (10), and
vice versa.
2.1.3.2.3. Short testing: sentence production. The production procedure was the same as the one
used on Day 1, but a new set of videos and sentences was used.
2.1.3.2.4. Sentence Training II. Once again, the training procedure was the same as the one used on
Day 1, except that we used a new set of videos and sentences. Each experimental verb was presented
in the two constructions in which it was not presented during Day 2 – Sentence Training I.
2.1.3.2.5. Short testing: sentence comprehension. The comprehension procedure was the same as the
one used on Day 1, but different videos and sentences were used. Each experimental verb was presented in the same two constructions as the ones from Day 2 – Sentence Training I.
2.1.3.3. Day 3. No training was administered on Day 3. The order of the Sentence Production and
Sentence Comprehension procedures was counterbalanced across experimental lists.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
13
Fig. 2. Example of experimental set-up for Sentence Comprehension.
2.1.3.3.1. Long testing: sentence production. The production procedure was the same as the one used
on the previous days, but 32 new videos/sentence pairs (half experimental, half filler) were created.
The experimental verbs were to be combined with NPs that they had not occurred with before.
Each verb was associated with two videos depicting an action carried out with an instrument and with
two videos depicting an action carried out without an instrument.
2.1.3.3.2. Long testing: sentence comprehension. The comprehension procedure was the same as
the one used during the previous days, but 32 new videos and sentences (half experimental,
half filler) were created. The experimental verbs were combined with NPs that they had never
been presented with before. Each verb was presented once in each of the four possible
constructions.
2.1.4. Coding of actions
Trained coders watched and transcribed the video recordings of participants’ actions; participants’ actions were then scored independently by the first author and a trained research assistant.
Inter-coder agreement was 98%; disagreements were resolved through discussion. Participants’
actions were scored in terms of their accuracy for the vocabulary items (e.g., verbs and nouns)
and the morphological markers independently. Verbs were scored as correct if the target action
type was carried out. Morphological markers were coded as correct or incorrect depending on
whether the participant’s action (instrument vs. non-instrument) matched the information provided by the morphological marker (‘‘-ka’’ vs. ‘‘-tu’’) in the sentence. Morphological accuracy
was calculated independently of whether the target action was carried out in so far as an action
that could be done with either an instrument or the hands was performed; for this reason, morphological errors always involved the use of an instrument in response to a non-instrument marker or vice versa. So, for example, if in response to the sentence ‘‘zumpi-tu nunu’’, a participant
lifted, rather than bounced, the clothespin, her response would be scored as incorrect in terms of
verb accuracy but correct in terms of the morphological marker. Participants’ comprehension
accuracy rates for morphological markers and verbs are reported separately in Sections 2.2.1.1
and 2.2.1.2, respectively.
2.1.5. Coding of eye movement data
Participants’ eye movements during the sentence comprehension task were coded frame by frame
from the video recordings obtained from the camera placed behind the podium. The digital camera
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
14
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
recorded at a speed of 30 Hz, i.e. a frame every 33 ms. The video and audio annotation software ELAN
(version 4.6.1.) was used to annotate the onset and offset of each experimental sentence, and the
onset, offset and direction of each fixation for the duration of the sentence until 2000 ms after sentence offset. The coders were instructed to use one of six possible codes for each fixation: top left,
top right, bottom left, bottom right, middle, and other. A fixation would be coded as ‘‘other’’ if the subject’s eyes were closed, not visible, or the direction of the eye gaze could not be determined. Three
research assistants coded all the videos; subsequently, 20% of the videos were re-coded by an independent coder. Average inter-coder agreement was very good (88%, Kappa = .84, p < .001). In cases where
the two coding mismatched, the original coding was used. While eye movements were collected for
the comprehension portion of the study for all three days of the study, they were coded only for
Day 3. This is because of the relatively low number of items tested on Day 1 and 2 (four per condition
on each day) and particularly low act-out accuracy on Day 1 (50% overall across languages).
2.1.6. Coding of productions
Participants’ productions were transcribed by a trained transcriber. Transcriptions were then
scored independently by the first author and a trained research assistant in terms of their accuracy
for vocabulary items and morphological markers. Inter-coder agreement was 96%; disagreements
were resolved through discussion. Vocabulary items (verbs and NPs) were scored as correct if the target word was used. Target words with phonemic substitutions (e.g., ‘‘tufo’’ for ‘‘tufa’’; ‘‘clemi’’ for
‘‘glemi’’) were considered correct so long as the target word was recognizable. Productions of morphological markers were coded as either correct or incorrect; incorrect productions were further coded as
errors of either omissions or commission.9 Errors of commission consisted of the production of the
instrument morpheme to describe a non-instrument event or vice versa, or in the production of a morpheme that was not part of the language inventory (e.g., -to, -ku, -ta, etc.); this latter type of error was
rare and occurred with comparable frequency in the two conditions (instrument condition: N = 13;
non-instrument condition: N = 14). The majority of the errors were errors of commission (.66 of errors
overall, .68 of errors in late-cue languages and .63 in early-cue languages), indicating that participants
were sensitive to the morphological characteristics of the language grammars (i.e., alternation between
different morphological markers), without having reached complete mastery of their grammatical function. In the analyses below errors of omission and errors of commission are collapsed together. While the
overall numerical patterns (higher accuracy rates for early-cue than late-cue languages) is observed for
both error types, the pattern was more pronounced for errors of commission (overall omission errors:
N = 68 vs. N = 57 in late-cue languages and early-cue languages, respectively; overall commission errors:
N = 144 vs. N = 98 in late-cue languages and early-cue languages, respectively). Word order errors were
extremely rare (N = 19 in total) and occurred only in late-cue languages: they either involved V-initial
productions when the input language was a V-final language (N = 11) or a switch in the relative position
of the two NP’s (N = 8). Morphological accuracy was calculated independently of the accuracy of vocabulary items; for example, a production like ‘‘glemitu kefu’’ in response to a video for which the target
production was ‘‘blikitu kefu’’ would be scored as incorrect for verb accuracy but as correct for morphological accuracy. Participants’ productions of morphological markers and verbs are reported separately in
Sections 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2, respectively.
2.1.7. Statistical analyses
In the results reported below, learners’ comprehension and production accuracy profiles are
graphed in terms of proportions; statistical analyses are instead based on multi-level mixed effects
logistic regressions; the random effect structures for our models always included by-subject and
9
This coding was straightforward for the two verb-marking languages, since one of the two morphological markers always
needed to be produced. For the two noun-marking languages, in contrast, the morphological marker -tu was only to be produced if
the function of the inanimate NP was that of a NP modifier, see Section 2.1.3.3. If the inanimate object was the patient of the action
(i.e., for non-instrument 1-NP sentences), no morpheme should be produced. For these reasons, productions of this type were
coded as correct in terms of the morphological marker if no morpheme was produced. Again, our predictions pertained to
differences in early- vs. late-cue languages, thus these differences between verb- and noun-marking, which cross-cut early- vs.
late-cue comparisons, cannot explain observed differences that pertain to our hypotheses.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
15
by-item random intercepts; by-item random slopes for the effect of cue order (early vs. late) were
modeled whenever the latter was included as a fixed effect in the model, unless otherwise specified.10
For the analyses that investigated differences among groups in terms of the number of subjects that
reached ‘‘acquisition’’ criterion, chi-square analyses were performed (see end of Sections 2.2.1.1,
2.2.3.1 and 2.2.4).
Statistical analyses of eye gaze patterns were performed using cluster-based permutation analysis
(Maris & Oostenveld, 2007). These analyses are used to discover significant clusters of observations
within a data set over time. To do this, a critical t is first calculated based on the number of degrees
of freedom (for both subjects and items); the t-statistic for each time-bin in the cluster needed to
exceed this value. Second, a t-value for each of the time-bins in the series is calculated. Significant
individual bin t-values are then randomly reshuffled across the time series and the size of the maximum random cluster of t-values is calculated for each reshuffling. Random reshuffling is then repeated
a large number of times (in our case, 1000 iterations); this procedure gives rise to a distribution of the
maximal t-values for the randomly obtained clusters. The proportion of random partitions that result
in a test statistic larger than the ones observed in the dataset is calculated. This proportion represents
the p-value. If the p-value is smaller than the critical alpha-level (i.e., .05), the t-statistic for a given
cluster in the data is considered to differ significantly from chance.
2.2. Results and discussion
Results are divided into four sections below. First (in Section 2.2.1), we present participants’ actions
in response to sentences containing instrument and non-instrument morphology. Second (in
Section 2.2.2), we analyze how participants use morphological information during online sentence
processing to guide their exploration of the visual world. Third (in Section 2.2.3), we analyze participant’s productions in response to videos depicting events carried out with or without an instrument.
Finally (in Section 2.2.4), we report a summary of the responses of a short survey we presented at the
end of the study, aimed at further investigating participant’s knowledge of the function of morphological markers in the languages they were exposed to.
To reiterate our experimental hypotheses, we predicted that languages in which morphological
cues to argument structure are available at the beginning of a sentence (and as such can be used in
early processing stages to guide participants’ interpretations) will be acquired more successfully
and at a faster pace than languages in which the same information becomes available only at the
end of the sentence (and as such can only be used to confirm or revise initial parsing commitments).
We predicted that, if processing ease has an effect on language learning as a whole (e.g., learning of the
morpho-syntactic properties of the language), we should see an effect of cue ordering on both comprehension and production performance; this effect should obtain in both verb-marking languages
and noun-marking languages.
2.2.1. Actions
2.2.1.1. Morphological markers. Fig. 3 presents mean comprehension accuracy rates for the two morphological markers as a function of day and cue order (early vs. late-cue), collapsing across locus of
marking (whether the morphology was expressed on the noun or the verb) and number of NPs.
Accuracy increased linearly throughout the three days for both language variants (day (linear):
Estimate = 1.08, SE = .24, p < .001). But, critically, the linear increase in accuracy also interacted with
cue order in the predicted direction (cue order by day (linear): Estimate = .56, SE = .23, p = .01), indicating better learning curves for early-cue than for late-cue languages. Act-out accuracy for early-cue and
late-cue languages did not differ on either Day 1 (Estimate = .11, SE = .26, p = .67) or Day 2
(Estimate = .55, SE = .49, p = .26) and did not interact with locus of marking on either day (Day 1:
10
In a few occasions (see Section 2.2), the models that included cue order as by-item random slope failed to converge; these
models, were simplified by dropping the random slope. Including the by-subject random slope for the fixed effect of ‘‘day of study’’
resulted in convergence failure for the models; as a result, this random slope was dropped. By-item random slopes for the effect of
locus of marking and by-item and by-subject random slopes for the effect of condition (instrument vs. non-instrument) also caused
convergence issue in a number of models and were therefore dropped uniformly from all models.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
16
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 3. Average comprehension accuracy rates for the morphological markers by Day and Cue Order. Error bars represent
standard error.
Estimate = .38, SE = .48, p = .43; Day 2: Estimate = 1.54, SE = .94, p = .10, respectively). On Day 3, however, participants who learned the early-cue variants of the grammar displayed higher accuracy than
participants who had learned the late-cue variants (Estimate = 1.05, SE = .50, p = .04), regardless of the
whether morphological cues were expressed on nouns or verbs (cue order by locus of marking:
Estimate = .50, SE = .99, p = .61), as shown in Fig. 4.
An additional analysis was conducted to investigate whether accuracy rates were modulated by the
type of morpheme (‘‘-ka’’ vs. ‘‘-tu’’) used in the experimental sentence. In Table 3 in the Appendix, we
provide average comprehension accuracy rates for the two morphemes as a function of number of NPs
used in the sentence (1 vs. 2), cue order (early vs. late) and day of study. Although space limitations
preclude a full discussion of these patterns, certain aspects of this table are worth noting: sentences
marked with instrument morphology were associated with overall lower accuracy (Estimate = 1.76,
SE = .16, p < .001); this difference did not interact with cue order (Estimate = .46, SE = .32, p = .15), indicating a comparable disadvantage for instrument morphology in both early- and late-cue language
types. In contrast, this effect of morpheme type was modulated by number of NPs in a sentence
(Estimate = 1.86, SE = .41, p < .001). This interaction came about because, especially in Days 1 and 2,
errors occurred more often when the language-specific cue (i.e., the morphological marker) conflicted
with the universal NP number cue (i.e., instrument 1-NP sentences and non-instrument 2-NP sentences). This is in line with the hypothesis that, when language-specific knowledge is not yet or only
partially in place, learners have a tendency to use the number of NPs in a sentence as predictor of argument structure.
To further test the hypothesis that at the beginning of the acquisition process, language learners
rely on the number of NPs in a sentence as a potent predictor of argument structure, and that this tendency decreases as language-specific knowledge is accumulated, we conducted an analysis including
only those sentences for which the number of NPs mismatched with the number of thematic roles in
an event (i.e., instrument 1-NP sentences and non-instrument 2-NP sentences). We asked whether
learners’ tendency to act-out these commands by relying (incorrectly) on the number of NPs (i.e.,
by not using an instrument in instrument 1-NP sentences and by using an instrument to act-out
non-instrument 2-NP sentences) was modulated by day of study, and cue order.11 Thus decreases
across days would indicate that learners began to stop using the number of NPs as a predictor to
11
Locus of marking was not included in these analyses due to data sparseness on Day 1 and Day 2. This is because only sentences
in which the number of NPs mismatched with the number of thematic roles could be used in this analysis, resulting in only four
sentences (and two verbs) per participant on Day 1 and Day 2. On Day 3, where double the amount of data was available, the effect
of locus of marking and its interaction with cue order were not significant (locus of marking: Estimate = .55, SE = .59, p = .35, cue
order by locus of marking: Estimate = 1.45, SE = 1.17, p = .22); by-item random slopes for the effect of cue order were dropped for
this analysis due to convergence failure.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
17
Fig. 4. Day 3: Average comprehension accuracy rates by Locus of Marking and Cue Order. Error bars represent standard error.
Fig. 5. Average proportions of act-outs in which the number of participants in the event matched the number of NPs by Day and
Cue Order, for sentences where the number of NPs mismatched the number of event participants. Dotted line represents chance
(.5). Error bars represent standard error.
argument structure and instead began to (correctly) use morphological information. As can be seen in
Fig. 5, learners do indeed begin with a reliance on number of NPs, in that on the first day of the study
they matched the number of NPs to the number of thematic roles more often than expected by chance
(50%) for both early-cue (Estimate = .58, SE = .25, p = .02) and late-cue languages (Estimate = .47, SE = .22,
p = .03), consistent with the hypothesis that learners initially adopt this universal parsing heuristic.
Learners’ reliance on NP number decreased linearly throughout the study (day (linear):
Estimate = 1.44, SE = .17, p < .001). As expected, this linear decrease in participants’ reliance on number
of NPs was less pronounced for late-cue languages (day (linear) by cue order: Estimate = .72, SE = .33,
p = .03). Learners’ initial reliance on NP number was high and did not differ across early-and late-cue languages on either Day 1 (effect of cue order: Estimate = .09, SE = .32, p = .76) or Day 2 (Estimate = .94,
SE = .68, p = .16). On Day 3, participants who learned the late-cue variants of the grammar were on average more likely than participants who had learned the early-cue variants to continue incorrectly to use
NP number to predict argument structure; this difference was marginally significant (Estimate = 1.15,
SE = .63, p = .07).
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
18
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 6. Average comprehension accuracy rates for the action vocabulary by Day, Cue Order and Item-Type. Error bars represent
standard error.
In this study, we were interested not only in whether our manipulation would have an effect on
average accuracy rates, but also whether it would affect the number of people who could be considered ‘‘proficient’’ speakers of the language after a short exposure to the language system. To address
this question, we first established a criterion for ‘‘acquisition’’ based on the child language acquisition
literature (80% accuracy, see Brown, 1973) and then used this criterion to establish if participants’
comprehension scores on Day 3 passed the threshold for successful acquisition. Based on this criterion,
considerably more people acquired our early-cue languages (17/24 participants) as compared to our
late-cue languages (10/24), (v2 (1) = 4.15, p = .04).
2.2.1.2. Verb vocabulary. One might also expect that learners’ ability to provide a target argument
structure/syntactic analysis for a given sentence might result not only in faster acquisition rates for
the grammar of the language (in this case, the function of the morphemes) but also in faster acquisition rates for the (untaught) meaning of vocabulary items; such an effect, however, is expected to be
specific to verbs that are associated with a syntactic ambiguity, i.e., experimental verbs. In contrast,
filler verbs, which never involved ambiguity and garden-path recovery, should be acquired at similar
rates, independent of the cue order of the language. We examined this here by calculating action accuracy for the event type (e.g., whether, independent of correct use of intended arguments, participants
carried out a correct action, such as lifting for ‘‘bliki’’ and looking for ‘‘mefi’’).
Mean comprehension accuracy rates for the action vocabulary of the language as a function of day,
cue order and item type (experimental vs. filler) are shown in Fig. 6. On average, participants’ comprehension of the action vocabulary of the language (i.e., their understanding of the meaning of the verbs)
increased throughout the study for both verbs that denoted actions that could be carried out with an
instrument or the hands (experimental verbs: day (linear): Estimate = 2.38, SE = .26, p < .001) and
verbs that denoted actions that could only be carried out with a body part (filler verbs: day (linear):
Estimate = 3.88, SE = .39, p < .001). Moreover, a significant effect of cue order emerged for experimental
verbs only: while accuracy significantly increased throughout the study for both early-cue (day (linear): Estimate = 2.42, SE = .31, p < .001) and late-cue languages (day (linear): Estimate = 2.35, SE = .31,
p < .001), accuracy was overall higher for early-cue languages (cue order: Estimate = .72, SE = .36,
p = .05). This effect was not significant for filler items (Estimate = .80, SE = .51, p = .11). No other effects
or interactions were significant (all p’s > .05).
2.2.1.3. Summary of action data. The act-out results indicate that the order with which morphological
cues to argument structure become available to the processing system has an effect on the ease with
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
19
which these cues are learned and used during sentence processing: comprehension accuracy for morphological cues to argument structure increased at faster rates and was higher on the last day of the
study for early-cue than late-cue languages. Moreover, participants’ comprehension of the meaning of
the experimental verbs was overall more accurate for early-cue than late-cue language variants, indicating perhaps that being able to assign the correct structural analysis to the linear string had a positive impact on participants’ ability to infer or remember the target meaning for the novel word. In line
with this speculation, no significant effect of cue order emerged for filler verbs, for which no morphological contrast was present (i.e., the type of action to be carried out was solely determined by the
meaning of the verb); this indicates that the observed cue-ordering effects are selective to cases in
which morphological cues to argument structure need to be used for successful comprehension.
2.2.2. Eye movements
2.2.2.1. Real-time measure of morphological discrimination. The purpose of this analysis was to investigate learners’ ability to use morphological information in real time to guide their interpretation of sentences, and examine whether it differed as a function of the order in which disambiguating
morphological information became available in the sentence. We examined participants’ eye gaze
responses to structures with instrument and non-instrument morphology during the act-out comprehension tests. We predicted that participants acquiring early-cue languages would show greater discrimination of instrument vs. non-instrument morphology and that such discrimination patterns
would appear earlier after disambiguation for early-cue than late-cue languages, since early-cue languages do not require costly revision. These analyses are based on eye-movement patterns for correct
trials only, because this allows us to investigate the extent to which the order of disambiguating cues
affects online processing commitments, even for trials in which the order of morphological cues does
not influence offline accuracy. All analyses are based on eye-movement patterns collected on Day 3
(Long Testing Task: Sentence Comprehension). We excluded the comprehension tests of Day 1 and
Day 2 because of data sparseness: only eight test trials appeared on each day and off-line actions were
frequently incorrect (see Fig. 3).
In order to investigate participants’ online ability to discriminate between instrument and
non-instrument morphological markers and whether this ability was affected by the order with which
morphological cues to meanings become available in a sentence, we examined whether instrument
and non-instrument sentences were associated with different looking patterns, and how this difference was affected by cue order (late vs. early). A ‘discrimination score’ was calculated for each
100 ms time bin by subtracting the proportion of looks to the relevant inanimate object when
non-instrument morphology was present from the proportion of looks to the same object when
instrument morphology was present. For example, given the sentence pair ‘‘zumpi-ka fami nunu’’
(‘bounce the dolphin using the clothespin’) and ‘‘zumpi-tu fami nunu’’ (‘bounce the dolphin, which
is holding the clothespin’), a discrimination score was calculated by subtracting the proportion of
looks to the clothespin associated with the sentence containing non-instrument morphology from
the proportion of looks to the clothespin associated with the sentence containing instrument morphology. Scores close to zero thus indicate poor discrimination between the morphological markers,
positive scores indicate that sentences containing instrument morphology were associated with
higher proportions of looks to the inanimate object than sentences containing the non-instrument
morphology, and vice versa negative scores indicate that sentences containing the marker ‘‘-ka’’ were
associated with lower proportions of looks to the inanimate object than sentences containing
non-instrument morphology.
For 2-NP sentences, target discrimination of morphology should result in discrimination scores that
are positive in sign, i.e., higher proportion of looks to the inanimate object with instrument than with
non-instrument morphology. This is because, in sentences marked with instrument morphology, the
inanimate object is the instrument with which the action should be carried out (i.e., ‘‘Bounce the dolphin using the clothespin’’); in contrast, in non-instrument sentences, the inanimate object is to be
interpreted as a modifier of the direct object (i.e., ‘‘Bounce the dolphin that has the clothespin’’). In this
latter case, virtually no looks to the quadrant containing the inanimate object alone (i.e., the big
clothespin) are expected.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
20
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
In contrast, for 1-NP sentences, the expected pattern of discrimination is opposite in sign and more
nuanced: looks to the inanimate object were expected in both sentences with instrument and
non-instrument morphology, since in both cases the inanimate object is involved in the action. In
1-NP sentences with non-instrument morphology, the inanimate object is the intended patient in
the event (e.g., ‘‘zumpi-tu nunu’’, ‘bounce the clothespin’), and is the only relevant referent in the
visual world. On the other hand, in 1-NP sentences with instrument morphology (e.g., ‘‘zumpi-ka
nunu’’, ‘bounce Ø using the clothespin’), participants’ attention should be divided between the omitted
patient (i.e., the last object mentioned during naming) and the inanimate object instrument (i.e., the
clothespin). Accurate interpretation of 1-NP sentences, is thus expected to result in discrimination
scores that are negative in sign, i.e., lower proportion of looks to the inanimate object with instrument
than with non-instrument morphology.
Fig. 7 plots average discrimination scores for 1- and 2-NP sentences (indicated by dashed and solid
lines, respectively) over time, from the point in which both the identity and the function of the inanimate object is disambiguated12 until 2000 ms after it, separately for early-cue (black squares) and
late-cue (gray circles) languages.
For 2-NP sentences, discrimination patterns differed across time between early- and late-cue languages. For early-cue languages, discrimination scores rose significantly above zero around 700 ms
after disambiguation and remained positive until the end of the time window. In contrast, for
late-cue languages, discrimination scores became significantly positive only at the very end of the
time-window, between 1900 and 2000 ms after disambiguation. Discrimination scores were also more
pronounced for early-cue languages than late-cue ones; this difference reached statistical significance
between 600 ms and 1700 ms after disambiguation.
A similar picture emerged for 1-NP sentences. For early-cue languages, discrimination scores fell
significantly below zero around 600 ms and remained negative until the end of the time window.
For late-cue languages, discrimination scores fell significantly below zero around 1000 ms and
remained negative until the end. Discrimination scores were more pronounced for early- than
late-cue ones; this difference was statistically significant between 600 and 900 ms after
disambiguation.
The pattern that emerges from the analysis of learners’ eye-movements as they process sentences
in real time thus confirms and extends the results obtained from the analysis of their off-line actions:
languages in which morphological cues to argument structure arrive at the beginning, rather than at
the end of the sentence, enable learners to use this information faster and more effectively.
Importantly, this result is not a simple reflection of the fact that disambiguation information arrives
earlier in early-cue languages, and can thus be used at an earlier point, because this pattern emerges
after taking into account the relative position of disambiguating information in the different language
variants (by time locking our measurement to the onset of the relevant morpheme). This pattern is
also not a simple reflection of the higher proportion of correct actions (and thus higher looks to correct
objects) in early-cue languages, since the analyses were conducted on correct trials only.
2.2.2.2. Signs of garden-pathing in late-cue languages. The previous analyses indicated that learners use
morphological information that arrives early in the sentence more effectively to direct their attention
to the visual scene during online sentence processing. However, these analyses do not allow us to conclude that slower rates of convergence on or away from a given referent in learners of cue-final languages reflect initial misinterpretation of its thematic role – an important prediction of our model.
To investigate this issue, we conducted a follow-up analysis on a subset of the eye-movement data.
We focused on how looks to the inanimate object in (correctly acted-out) 2-NP sentences are
12
The point at which both the identity and the function of the inanimate object is disambiguated is indicated for all language and
sentence types by boldfacing the relevant word in the Appendix. For language variants (II)–(IV), the morphological marker signals
the point in which the listener has received enough information to know both the identity and the function of the inanimate NP.
For language variant (I), instead, the morphological marker expressed on the verb (e.g., ‘‘zumpi-tu’’) only provides information
about the type of action that was to be carried out (i.e., instrument vs. non-instrument), while the identity of the inanimate object
becomes available at the very end of the sentence (e.g., ‘‘nunu’’). The onset of this latter NP was then taken as the onset of
disambiguation.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
21
Fig. 7. Average Discrimination Scores as a function of Time (in ms), number of NPs in the sentence and Cue Order.
Discrimination Scores are plotted from the onset of the point of disambiguation until 2000 ms after it.
modulated by morphological cues in the cue-final verb-marking language.13 This language variant and
structure were chosen because the inanimate NP and the morphological cues that disambiguate its thematic role in the event (i.e., instrument vs. modifier) are maximally separated in time (e.g., ‘‘kefu fami
glemi-tu/-ka’’), thus allowing us to distinguish more precisely between initial and final interpretations
of the thematic role assigned to the inanimate object.
In order to investigate whether learners of this language variant initially interpreted the inanimate
object as the instrument with which the action should be carried out and later had to revise this interpretation upon hearing the non-instrument morpheme ‘‘-tu’’, we identified two broad time windows:
the first one, from the onset of the inanimate NP until the end of the lexical verb but before the onset
of the morphological cue (approximately the first 2000 ms), and the second one, comprising the
2000 ms after the onset of the morphological cue. In the first time window, looks to the inanimate
object should not differ between sentences marked with the instrument marker ‘‘-ka’’ and those
marked with the non-instrument marker ‘‘-tu’’, since the marker has not yet been heard. More crucially, if the inanimate NP is initially interpreted as the instrument with which the action should be
carried out, looks to the inanimate object should not increase significantly when the instrument marker is heard, as compared to the first portion of the sentence (i.e., before any marker is heard), but
should be significantly reduced in the presence of the non-instrument maker ‘‘-tu’’.
Our predictions received support from the data. For ‘‘-ka’’ and ‘‘-tu’’ sentences respectively, mean
proportions of looks to the instrument were .26 and .24 in the first time window and .31 and .14 in the
second time window. Mixed-effects regression models based on e-logit transformed data revealed
that looks to the inanimate object during the first time window (e.g., ‘‘kefu fami glemi’’) were comparable for sentences with instrument and non-instrument markers (Estimate = .75, SE = .71, p = .31).
While looks to the inanimate object increased numerically between the first time window (e.g., ‘‘kefu
fami glemi’’) and the second time window if the instrument marker ‘‘-ka’’ was heard, this increase was
not significant (Estimate = .71, SE = .59, p = .22). On the other hand, looks to the inanimate object significantly decreased in the presence of the non-instrument marker ‘‘-tu’’ (Estimate = 1.02, SE = .52,
p = .05).
This pattern is in line with the experimental hypothesis that learners of late-cue languages incrementally use the number of NPs in a sentence as a cue for thematic role assignment, which is then
confirmed or revised by late-arriving morphological evidence.
13
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
22
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
2.2.3. Production
The results reported in the previous section suggest that languages in which morphological cues
to meaning are available early, rather than late, in a sentence, are associated with higher accuracy
and more rapid disambiguation in comprehension. Crucially though, we also investigated learners’
production abilities so as to determine whether differences between early- vs. late-cue languages
simply reflected garden-path effects in comprehension or instead reflected more general effects of
cue ordering on grammar acquisition as a whole. Our prediction was that, if processing limitations
have an effect on grammar acquisition generally, (a) effects of cue ordering should also emerge in
tests of production and (b) individual comprehension and production performance profiles should
be similar.
2.2.3.1. Morphological markers. Fig. 8 presents average production accuracy for the morphological
markers as a function of day and cue order, collapsing across locus of marking. Production accuracy
increased throughout the three days for both language types (day (linear): Estimate = 1.54, SE = .15,
p < .001).14 Critically, the linear increase in production accuracy interacted with cue order in the predicted direction (cue order by day (linear): Estimate = 1.20, SE = .27, p < .001), indicating a steeper learning curve for early-cue than for late-cue languages.
Production accuracy between early-cue and late-cue languages did not differ on either Day 1
(Estimate = 0.19, SE = .39, p = .63) or Day 2 (Estimate = .60, SE = .51, p = .23) and did not interact with
locus of marking on either day (cue order by locus of marking on Day 1: Estimate = .19, SE = .77, p = .80;
Day 2: Estimate = 1.04, SE = .99, p = .29). On Day 3, however, participants who learned the early-cue
variants of the language displayed higher accuracy rates than participants who had learned the
late-cue variants (Estimate = 2.28, SE = .88, p = .009), regardless of whether the morphological marker
appeared on the verb or the NP (cue order by locus of marking: Estimate = .13, SE = 1.68, p = .94).
Accuracy rates by cue order and locus of marking for the last day of the study are shown in Fig. 9.
An additional analysis was conducted to investigate whether accuracy rates were modulated by the
type of event being described (instrument vs. non-instrument). Event type did not have a significant
effect on participants’ productions: accuracy rates were comparable for events that involved the use of
an instrument and events that did not (Estimate = .19, SE = .14, p = .19) and production accuracy
increased throughout the study in a similar manner for the two events types (event type by day
(linear): Estimate = .41, SE = .25, p = .09). For the complete pattern of results, see Table 4 in the
Appendix.
As mentioned above, in this study we were interested in determining not only whether the
order in which morphological cues to meaning become available to the processing system has
an effect on comprehension and production performance, but whether it would affect acquisition
of the grammatical system as a whole. To answer this question, we first compared early and
late-cue languages in terms of the number of people whose production profiles indicated that they
had ‘‘acquired’’ the grammatical system. For this analysis, we used the same criterion in production
that we had used in comprehension (80% accuracy, see Brown, 1973). The results indicate that
more people reached criterion in early-cue than late-cue languages (21/24 vs. 13/24, v2
(1) = 6.45, p = .01). Second, we investigated the existence of a correlation between accuracy rates
across tests of production and comprehension on the last day of the study. The results of this analysis show similar profiles for production and comprehension; in both groups, accuracy rates in
comprehension and production correlated significantly (r2 = .73, p < .001 and r2 = .43, p < .001 for
late-cue and early-cue languages, respectively). More crucially, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11, a qualitatively different pattern emerges for the two language groups: while most learners of early
cue-languages display high accuracy rates for both production and comprehension, thus showing
evidence of having acquired the grammatical system, a substantial number of learners of late
cue-languages display low accuracy rates in both comprehension and production and thus show
no evidence of having acquired the grammatical system. These results are in line with the
14
The model that included by-item random slopes for the effect of cue order failed to converge, so this random slope was
dropped and the final model for this analysis only included by-subject and by-item random intercepts.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
23
Fig. 8. Average production accuracy rates for the morphological markers by Day and Cue Order. Error bars represent standard
error.
Fig. 9. Day 3: Average production accuracy rates for the morphological markers by Locus of Marking and Cue Order. Error bars
represent standard error.
experimental hypothesis that processing constraints and limitations affect grammatical development as a whole.
2.2.3.2. Verb vocabulary. In order to investigate whether learners’ ability to provide a target argument
structure/syntactic analysis for a given sentence might result not only in faster acquisition rates for
the grammar of the language (in this case, the function of the morphemes) but also in faster acquisition rates for the (untaught) meaning of vocabulary items, we calculated production accuracy for the
verbs of the language (e.g., whether, independent of correct production of morphology, learners produced the correct verb, such as ‘‘bliki’’ for lifting and ‘‘mefi’’ for looking).
This prediction was not born out in the production data (see Fig. 12). On average, participants’ production of the verb vocabulary of the language increased linearly throughout the study both for verbs
that denoted actions that could be carried out with and without an instrument (experimental items:
day (linear): Estimate = 1.86, SE = .36, p < .001) and verbs that denoted actions that could only be carried out with a body part (filler verbs: day (linear): Estimate = 2.08, SE = .26, p < .001). However, there
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
24
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 10. Day 3: Correlation between production and comprehension accuracy rates for the morphological markers for early-cue
languages.
Fig. 11. Day 3: Correlation between production and comprehension accuracy rates for the morphological markers for late-cue
languages.
was no effect of cue order on verb production accuracy for either experimental (Estimate = .25, SE = .46,
p = .58) or filler items (Estimate = .50, SE = .44, p = .25); no other effects or interactions were significant
(all p’s > .05).
2.2.3.3. Summary. The results from the production portion of the study confirm and extend the results
that emerged from the analysis of learners’ online and offline sentence comprehension performance.
Although differences were not observed in verb-production, effects of cue order had the expected
effects on the production of morphological markers: accuracy rates were overall higher for learners
of early-cue than late-cue languages on the last day of the study, and early cue languages were associated with a higher proportion of learners whose production of morphological markers indicated
mastery of the grammar of the language. Taken together, these results indicate that the order with
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
25
Fig. 12. Average production accuracy rates for the action vocabulary by Day, Cue Order, and Item-type. Error bars represent
standard error.
which morphological cues to argument structure become available to the processing system has a
sizeable effect on participants’ ability to learn these cues and use them in real time.
2.2.4. Offline survey on grammatical knowledge
The main prediction of our study was that the preferences and limitations of the human sentence
parser, and in particular, difficulties revising initial interpretations, would not just affect learners’ ability to use morphological cues to meaning during sentence comprehension, but the language acquisition path tout court. One way to investigate this is to examine production as well as comprehension,
since revision of initial interpretations does not play a role in this latter case. The previous section
showed an effect of cue order on production accuracy, thus lending support to our predictions. A second way to investigate this issue is to ask language learners’ about the function and meaning of the
morphemes and about their interpretative strategies during sentence comprehension. If cue order
only had an effect on processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences and not on grammar acquisition
more generally, we would not expect a difference in participants’ ability to describe the meaning of
the morphological cues; on the other hand, if cue order has an impact on grammar acquisition, learners of early-cue languages might display both higher performance accuracy in the processing tasks and
a superior knowledge of the language grammar; the latter might translate into a better ability to
describe the meaning of the morphemes. To investigate participants’ knowledge of the function of
morphology, we administered a post-experiment questionnaire on Day 3, which asked about the
grammar of the language (‘‘What did -ka mean?’’; ‘‘What did -tu mean?’’; ‘‘When did you use an
instrument/your hand to carry out an action?’’), and participants’ learning strategies (e.g., ‘‘Were
you paying attention to the ending of words?’’; ‘‘Were you actively looking for a pattern?’’; ‘‘When
did you start noticing the pattern?’’).
Participants were classified on the basis of whether they could verbally describe the meaning of the
morphemes (e.g., ‘‘-ka meant that you had to use an object to move another object, -tu meant that you
had to do the action with your hands’’). There were no differences between the two particular morphemes with respect to participants’ ability to describe their meaning: participants either were able
to provide the correct meaning for both or neither. There was an effect of cue ordering on participants’
knowledge of the meaning of the morphology, such that more of the participants who learned an
early-cue variant, as compared to participants who learned a late-cue variant (.89 vs. .55,
v2 (1) = 5.29, p = .02), provided responses indicating they could describe the function of morphology
in the grammatical system (see Fig. 13). No differences in participants’ knowledge were found
between learners of noun vs. verb-marking languages (v2 (1) = .15, p = .70). Most people who noticed
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
26
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 13. Proportion of participants who were able to correctly indicate the function of morphological markers in the offline
survey. Error bars represent standard error.
the pattern reported that they began to do so on Day 2 (.59 and .58 in early-cue and late-cue languages) and most people reported being actively engaged in looking for a pattern (.61 in early-cue
and .67 in late-cue languages; v2 (1) = .12, p = .73), an issue we return to in Section 3.
3. General discussion
3.1. Summary and key observations
Across three days, adult participants learned a miniature language by listening and repeating commands in the language paired with short videos in which an actress acted out said commands. In all
language variants studied, the number of NPs in a sentence, a cross-linguistically valid cue to argument structure, was not a reliable cue to meaning, due to frequent argument omission and redundant
NP modification, whereas morphological cues appearing on verbs or NPs (depending on the language
variant) perfectly predicted the number of participants/thematic roles associated with an event. Thus,
in order to correctly interpret and produce sentences in the language, learners could not rely on the
number of NPs, but needed to produce and attend to language-specific morphological cues to
structure.
As predicted, tests of comprehension revealed that learners, independent of the language variant, displayed an initial tendency to assume that the number of NPs corresponded to the number
of arguments in the sentence but over the course of exposure usually learned the correct meaning
of the morphological cue (see Fig. 5). Strikingly, the ability to learn the language-specific morphological cue to structure was systematically delayed for those individuals learning a language variant in which the morpheme arrived late in each sentence (late-cue languages) as compared to
those learning a variant in which the morpheme arrived early in each sentence (early-cue languages). This was true both in real-time tests of comprehension (Figs. 3–6) and production
(Figs. 8 and 9), suggesting that general knowledge of the meaning of the morphemes (‘‘-ka’’ vs.
‘‘-tu’’) was impaired for late-cue as compared to early-cue language variants. Also, learners of
the early-cue language variants were significantly more likely to reach a successful criterion of
having acquired the morphemes and were more likely to correctly report the meaning of the morphemes when their knowledge was surveyed at the end of the three-day study (Fig. 13). Quite crucially, this was true regardless of whether morphological cues were expressed on NPs or verbs,
indicating that the observed superior performance associated with early-cue languages cannot be
accounted for in terms of facilitatory L1-transfer effects.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
27
3.2. Evaluation of findings and implications for grammar acquisition
Our results are largely consistent with the processing account of grammar acquisition sketched in
the introduction to this paper. Without prior knowledge of language-specific cues to argument structure, listeners tend to follow a simple structure-to-meaning mapping principle, in which each NP identified in a sentence is assumed to denote a separate participant/thematic role in the event denoted by
the matrix verb. This pattern has been observed previously in studies of natural language acquisition
(e.g., Gertner & Fisher, 2012; Lidz et al., 2003; Naigles et al., 1992, 1993). Regardless of the exact nature
of this mapping principle (and whether it is better characterized as part of Universal Grammar or as a
universal parsing and interpretation heuristic), several predictions follow based on what is known
about the general limitations on real-time parsing, especially those limitations pertaining to the ability to revise initial parsing commitments.
In particular, if language-specific cues to argument structure appear late in a sentence (more precisely, if they occur after a universal parsing heuristic has had an opportunity to structure and interpret earlier aspects of the sentence) then such a language-specific cue to structure would be
challenging to use and acquire. Even after forming the correct hypothesis about the meaning of such
a morpheme (e.g., the meaning of ‘‘-ka’’), accurate testing of this meaning hypothesis would require
revising the initial parse – a process that is known to be difficult for child learners and adults learning
a second language. Thus such sentences would be difficult to use as evidence for confirming a correct
hypothesis. This is exactly the pattern observed here: learners who were exposed to an artificial language in which a language-specific morphological cue to argument structure appeared late in sentences had greater difficulty accurately comprehending and producing this morphological cue.
Our comprehension results replicate recent findings from a cross-linguistic comparison of children
acquiring one of two natural languages: children learning Kannada, a verb-final language, were found
to have difficulty correctly interpreting causative verb morphology as compared to age-matched children learning Tagalog, a verb-initial language that also has causative verb morphology (Trueswell
et al., 2012). However, as noted in the introduction, this cross-linguistic finding is only suggestive
since comprehension, but not production, abilities were tested; moreover Kannada and Tagalog differ
in many other ways, both morphologically and syntactically. By examining both comprehension and
production performance in the same group of learners, on languages that differed only in the ordering
of cues, the present study provides crucial evidence indicating that the order in which cues to interpretation appear in a sentence, and can be used in real-time by the language user, affects acquisition
trajectories as a whole. Given that similar effects of cue order appeared in tests of both production and
comprehension, we can be more confident that adults’ acquisition of the meaning of the morpheme
was delayed in late-cue language variants.
Our particular account of this effect is as follows. In the absence of language-specific knowledge,
the mapping of utterances onto meaning is initially guided by universal structure-to-meaning mapping principles, which are gradually abandoned and supplanted by language-specific knowledge as
the learner gathers evidence about their inadequacy to process the input successfully. In order to
replace these initial heuristics with language-specific knowledge, learners need to be minimally able
to (a) notice a mismatch between the analysis of the input provided by their current grammar and the
state of affairs in the world, (b) update their grammar to include a new hypothesis, and (c) test the
new hypothesis by applying it to subsequent input. We proposed that learners’ ability to test and confirm (or disconfirm) a new grammatical hypothesis will be enhanced if this hypothesis can be used to
guide the parser toward building the target structure and interpretation from the start (early-cue languages) than when it can be used to confirm or revise a parsing analysis and interpretation (late-cue
languages); this, in turn, should engender faster learning rates.
Consider for example the learner who has formed a tentative (and correct) hypothesis that the verbal morpheme ‘‘-tu’’ indicates that a given action should be carried out with the hands (i.e.,
non-instrument) and is now seeking confirmation of this hypothesis from additional sentences containing ‘‘-tu’’. In a verb-final language, this learner might subsequently encounter a sentence such
as ‘‘nunu fami zumpi-tu’’ (clothespin dolphin bounce-non-instrument). Upon first hearing ‘‘nunu
fami’’, these two NPs are likely to be analyzed (in real-time) as two separate NPs with different thematic roles (e.g., instrument and patient); upon hearing the inflected verb ‘‘zumpi-tu’’, our learner
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
28
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
would need to use her fragile knowledge of ‘‘-tu’’ to revise this earlier interpretive commitment, and
reanalyze ‘‘fami nunu’’ as a complex NP argument. If revision of this sort is taxing, especially for language learners, there is some possibility that the correct interpretation will never be arrived at, and
hence no reinforcement will occur based on the lack of a successful, coherent connection to the referent world. If on the other hand, the same person were learning a verb-initial language, they would
have encountered the inflected verb at the start of the sentence ‘‘zumpi-tu fami nunu’’, allowing for
a means to parse correctly ‘‘fami nunu’’ as a single NP argument, since the presence of the morpheme
‘‘-tu’’ should prevent the NP ‘‘nunu’’ to be interpreted as an instrument. This would likely lead to an
easy alignment with the referential world, reinforcing the learner’s hypothesized meaning of ‘‘-tu’’
as non-instrument.
Note that our account has within it an assumption about the learning procedure used to identify
the meaning of a morpheme. We assume that learning of such morphemes is accomplished in a manner of hypothesis testing similar to what our lab has observed for the learning of the meaning of content nouns, a procedure we have dubbed propose-but-verify (Medina, Snedeker, Trueswell, & Gleitman,
2011; Trueswell, Medina, Hafri, & Gleitman, 2013): Upon the first encounter with a morpheme, learners select a single most plausible meaning based on linguistic and non-linguistic evidence. Upon the
next encounter, learners attempt to retrieve that meaning and test it against the current context. If
consistent, this meaning is reinforced, if not, the meaning is discarded and learners attempt to identify
a new meaning hypothesis. Here, real-time processing constraints (and universal parsing assumptions) appear to interact with this learning process precisely in the ways expected. Yet, as we do
not have direct evidence that this particular learning procedure underlies the learning of the meaning
of morphemes in the present study, we acknowledge that this aspect of our account is only speculative, but consistent with the present findings. Clearly, further research examining the specific
time-course of morpheme acquisition will be necessary.
3.3. Alternative accounts of the findings
It should be noted that a number of alternative accounts can be ruled out on the basis of the design
of the current study and its results. First, the finding that early-cue languages are associated with steeper learning curves and higher accuracy rates at end state cannot be attributed to a learning advantage
associated with a greater similarity between English and the verb-marking early-cue variant of the
miniature language in terms of word order (VMORPH NP NP vs. NP NP VMORPH). In order to control
for word-order similarity to English, we created early- and late-cue language variants in which the
morphological markers appeared on the NP’s, rather than the verb itself (NPMORPH NP V vs. V NP
NPMORPH). The results showed an advantage for the early-cue over the late-cue variants, regardless
of the lexical category on which the morpheme was expressed. This pattern cannot then be attributed
to greater similarity in word order between the early-cue language variant and English: the
NP-marking early-cue variant, in fact, was less similar to English in terms of word order than its late
cue-variant counterpart. If anything, the most clear-cut evidence of an acquisition advantage for
early-cue languages comes precisely from the NP-marking language pairs; in this case, the language
that is most similar to English in terms of word order is the late-cue variant (V NP NPMORPH), and it
is associated with higher reliance on NP number and significantly lower accuracy rates than the
early-cue variant (NPMORPH NP V) (see Fig. 4). While L1-transfer is an undeniable factor affecting adult
second language acquisition development, our experimental manipulation allowed us to establish that
facilitatory L1-tranfer effects are not the source of the observed, sizeable, learning advantage seen for
the cue-initial over cue-final noun-marking variants in our study.
Second, the advantage seen for early-cue languages is unlikely to stem from morphology in
clause-initial position being phonologically more salient than morphology in clause-final position. If
acoustic or perceptual salience were the main determinant of differences in acquisition between
the two experimental groups, late-cue languages, where morphological cues appear at the very end
of the clause (as suffixes on either the verb or the NP: e.g. ‘‘Nunu fami zumpika’’), should have been
associated with a learning advantage over early-cue languages, where the morphological cues appear
in the middle of the sentence (again, as suffixes on either the verb or the NP, e.g., ‘‘Zumpika fami
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
29
nunu’’). The available evidence, in fact, indicates that clause-final elements are associated with higher
perceptual salience than clause-medial ones, due to a number of phonological phenomena occurring
at the edge of phrase boundaries, including phrase-final word lengthening (Klatt, 1976; Turk &
Shattuck-Hufnagel, 2007; Wightman, Shattuck-Hufnagel, Osterdorf, & Price, 1992) and F0 rising
(Beckman & Pierrehumbert, 1986; Pierrehumbert, 1980). These properties, in turn, have important
consequences for acquisition, as convincingly shown by Sundara, Demuth, and Kuhl (2011) for child
learners of English: 22- and 27-month-old children were more accurate at producing the third person
singular marker -s and displayed higher sensitivity to the presence/absence of the third person singular marker -s when it was placed in clause-final, rather than in clause-medial position.
To the extent that perceptual salience plays a role in our study, the available evidence predicts that
it should have enhanced learners’ production and comprehension performance for late-cue language
variants. Since the main result of our study is that early-cue languages were associated with higher
performance accuracy, we can be quite confident that perceptual salience is not the source of the
observed learning advantage.
Finally, the observed advantage is also unlikely to stem from a selective memory advantage for
clause-initial material. This is because recall advantages are observed both for elements that occur
at the beginning (primacy effects) and at the end (recency effects) of a list, as compared to items that
occur in the middle (e.g., Ebbinghaus, 1913; Murdock, 1962; Howard & Kahana, 1999). To the extent
that serial-position effects play a role in our study, they do not seem to account in a straightforward
manner for the selective early-cue (i.e., primacy) advantage seen here.
3.4. Distribution of cues to argument structure and implications for language typology
The finding that early-cue languages present a processing and learning advantage converges well
with broad typological patterns found across the world’s languages. As observed by Greenberg (1963)
and Nichols (1992), languages in which the verb appears clause-initially tend to express syntactic relations between sentence constituents on the verb (Nichols, 1992), while V-final languages tend to
express these relations on NPs via case-marking (Greenberg, 1963: Universal 41), thus indicating that
early-cue languages are typologically preferred. While the ultimate explanation for such
cross-linguistic covariance patterns is a much debated issue in the literature (e.g., Gibson et al.,
2013), the present findings suggest that certain linguistic properties might be easier to learn than others
because they do not overload the (limited) cognitive resources of the language learner; in such a way,
processing preferences and limitations that result from general cognitive constraints can affect language
acquisition, and, by influencing what learners are more likely to acquire and pass on to the next generation, they might ultimately contribute to language change and shape the form of language universals.
Such a typological account is largely consistent with the proposals of Hawkins (e.g., Hawkins, 2004,
2012, 2014), who suggests that processing efficiency plays an important role in shaping grammars.
Most notably, Hawkins (2012) proposes the principle of ‘‘Maximize Online Processing’’: structures
in which properties are assigned to a linguistic element X as it is processed are preferred to structures
in which the property is left unassigned or, most relevant to the current discussion, misassigned (i.e.,
require revision). The present findings, and our account, provide a specific mechanism for explaining
such a typological preference: initially, learners employ universal parsing heuristics; language-specific
knowledge that contradicts such parsing heuristics will be especially difficult to acquire if the information tends to appear in sentence positions where universal parsing heuristics have already had
an opportunity to assign a structure to the incoming material; since parsing revision is especially difficult in language learners (children and adults), it should be especially difficult to identify correct
grammatical hypotheses when language specific knowledge tends to appear in such positions. If such
acquisition differences result in grammatical changes over generations (not tested here), we have an
acquisition/processing account of the typological theory expressed by Hawkins.
3.5. Limitations and further questions
There are of course several important issues left unresolved regarding our processing account of
grammar acquisition. One potential limitation of our study, and as a consequence, of our proposed
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
30
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
account, is that we explored here only one of two main possible communicative scenarios, namely one
in which linguistic stimuli become available and need to be assigned a preliminary analysis and interpretation before the events to which they refer, rather than one in which linguistic input is co-present
or follows the event. That is, sentence exposure for our learners always consisted of first hearing a spoken command and then seeing a video in which an actress acted out the command. In our study, the
visual referent world had just been presented to the learner and the objects had just been labeled,
thereby setting up a relevant discourse context for the exposure sentence, but the event itself was
seen only after hearing the sentence. Due to the real-time, incremental nature of the human sentence
parser, sentences had to be assigned a structural analysis and interpretation, which could then be
checked against the video and either confirmed or revised.
Since a crucial tenet of our account above is that difficulties associated with late-cue languages
stem from documented difficulties with revision of structural and interpretative commitments, a crucial question is whether revision is generally associated with late-cue languages or whether it is only
at play when sentence processing is not guided or constrained by additional information (e.g., referential, contextual, etc.). In other words, to what extent do our findings generalize to communicative
circumstances where events precede or co-occur with linguistic expressions and can thus constrain
and be used to guide sentence parsing? For example, suppose that learners, instead of hearing a sentence before seeing a corresponding video, were first exposed to videos (e.g., a woman bouncing a dolphin holding a small clothespin) and then to the corresponding sentence (e.g., ‘‘Nunu fami zumpi-tu’’).
In this scenario, could knowledge of the event drive the parser to the correct structural analysis from
the start, preventing costly revision and thus obliterating the learning cost associated with late-cue
languages? Our answer to this question can only be tentative at this point, since this possibility
was not directly tested in our study.15 Our intuition, however, is that this particular use of context could
only occur under specific laboratory circumstances.
Given a simple-enough referential world, where only one event is occurring at any given time and
the range of grammatical contrasts are limited, learners might indeed be able to use evidence from a
scene to guide sentence parsing, with the consequence that they might never find themselves down
the garden-path.
The critical issue, however, is one of generalizability to real world circumstances. In this regard, our
choice to have the utterance precede the event seems to be warranted. First, although there exists
some evidence that learning instances in which labeling follows, rather than precedes, exposure to referents might be associated with increased word learning performance (Ramscar, Yarlett, Dye, Denny,
& Thorpe, 2010), labeling upcoming events is quite common in language learning environments. In a
study of child-directed speech, Tomasello and Kruger (1992) found that among utterances that labeled
events, mothers used verbs to refer to upcoming ‘‘impending’’ actions about 65% of the time; mothers
labeled co-occurring events about 30% of the time, with the remainder 5% of utterances labeling past
events (see also Gleitman, 1990, for arguments that such a distribution would be expected).
Second, and perhaps most crucially, even in cases in which referents and events precede their linguistic description, listeners rarely know beforehand which of the many co-present referent(s),
co-occurring event(s) and aspects of events speakers are going to talk about. This view gets support
from both word learning and sentence processing studies; participants’ ability to deduce the meaning
of a word using only evidence from a scene interaction is quite limited, particularly so for verbs (see
Gillette et al., 1999 for an early demonstration); moreover, although listeners can use visual information to predict the structure and the content of utterances (e.g., for review see Tanenhaus & Trueswell,
2006), some have observed that this ability is hindered in more complex referential environments
(Ferreira, Foucart, & Engelhardt, 2013). Finally, it is also important to note that young language learners, even as old as five years of age, show limited ability to use contextual information to guide parsing
commitments (e.g., Snedeker & Trueswell, 2004; Trueswell et al., 1999) and that predictive processing
requires substantial mastery of a native language (e.g., Lew-Williams & Fernald, 2010).
15
However, it should be noted that, during training, learners were asked to repeat the sentences they heard after seeing the
videos; to the extent that sentence repetition requires the speaker to actively reconstruct the structure of the recalled sentence
(e.g., Lombardi & Potter, 1992; Potter & Lombardi, 1990), learners in our study could have been in the position to use the event to
correctly parse the sentences they repeated.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
31
In sum, to the extent that initial structural analyses and interpretation are always subject to error
and subsequent revision, as contextual and referential information constrains but does not determine
sentence parsing, the proposed processing effects on acquisition are hypothesized to hold regardless
of the relative ordering of linguistic input and referential information.
A second potential limitation of our study concerns the extendibility of our findings to fully-fledged
natural languages. We used an experimental paradigm that involved miniature artificial languages, in
which otherwise informative cues to interpretation, such as referential, pragmatic, and prosodic cues,
are instead (intentionally) partially uninformative. For example, argument omission – one of the
devices used in our miniature languages to disrupt the one-to-one mapping between number of
NPs in a sentence and number of event participants – is lexically and contextually constrained in
English, in that it only occurs with a small subset of verbs, and only under specific discourse conditions, i.e., low discourse prominence (Goldberg, 2001). In our miniature languages, in contrast, argument omission occurred with all lexical verbs, and was not contingent upon any particular discourse
status, although the identity of the omitted NP was perfectly recoverable from the context (i.e., it was
the last referent mentioned in the preceding discourse). Moreover, while redundant NP-modification –
the second device used in our miniature study to disrupt the one-to-one mapping between number of
NPs and that of event participants – is common in spoken English and is judged by adult native speakers as fully grammatical (Engelhardt, Bailey, & Ferreira, 2006), its use has also been shown to be associated with subtle linguistic cues (e.g., duration, see Engelhardt & Ferreira, 2013) that might in turn
help listeners refrain from non-target interpretations; this was not the case in our miniature languages. For these reasons, future work will need to address the extent to which findings based on
(adult) acquisition of highly controlled, but linguistically impoverished, artificial systems can be corroborated by evidence from natural language acquisition.
Another pressing issue left open in our investigation is whether similar results to those reported
here can be observed in young children. It is conceivable that cognitive effects on sentence processing
and language acquisition might be exaggerated by using artificial language systems with adult language learners, who might rely more heavily than children on domain-general problem solving skills
and conscious attention to solve the language acquisition puzzle (see Bley-Vroman, 1990, 2009). In
line with this criticism, more than half of the learners in our study reported being actively engaged
in figuring out the grammatical regularities of the language system.
While some positive suggestive evidence for processing effects on acquisition already exists in children, in the comparison of three year olds learning verb morphology in a verb-initial vs. a verb-final
language (Trueswell et al., 2012), more definitive evidence might be obtained by conducting an analogous miniature language experiment with young children. We expect similar findings would be
obtained, for any difficulties observed in revising parsing commitments in adults are usually found
to be greater and more exaggerated in children (e.g., Choi & Trueswell, 2010; Hurewitz et al., 2000;
Kidd, Stewart, & Serratrice, 2011; Trueswell et al., 1999; Weighall, 2008). Moreover, theoretical
accounts of garden-path recovery would expect such continuity, especially those accounts that appeal
to limitations in executive function/cognitive control. Indeed, our hypothesis stemmed from a consideration of the general constraints and limitations of the cognitive resources available to language
learners. In our model, an ideal cognitive system equipped with an infinite working memory capacity,
which is able to keep the processed language material within its focus of attention and effortlessly
abandon an initial interpretative commitment and re-parse the string once an initial parse turned
out to inadequately fit the input, is hypothesized to learn either language variant with equal accuracy.
However, listeners’ working memory capacity is limited and learners are notoriously bad at revising
initial parsing commitments (Pozzan & Trueswell, 2013; Trueswell et al., 1999), possibly because successful revision of initial interpretations rests upon a number of shared domain-general cognitive
skills (e.g., conflict resolution, inhibitory control, conflict monitoring, information updating, and cognitive flexibility abilities) which are not fully developed in young children (Zelazo & Frye, 1998) and
might be particularly taxed during the processing of a non-dominant non-native language in adults
(e.g., Abutalebi, 2008).
Although the present study did not directly assess the hypothesis that learners’ difficulties with
revision stem from constraints and limitation of domain-general cognitive resources, a growing body
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
32
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
of work supports the hypothesized link between cognitive control and sentence processing abilities.
This evidence comes from both correlational and training studies.
With respect to the former, it has been shown that individual differences in (verbal and non-verbal)
working memory capacity and executive functions skills positively correlate with individual differences in the ability to process complex sentences (for child learners, see Booth, Mac Whinney, &
Harasaki, 2000; Boyle, Lindell, & Kidd, 2013; Felser, Marinis, & Clahsen, 2003; Montgomery,
Magimairaj, & O’Malley, 2008; for adult learners, see Havik, Roberts, Van Hout, Schreuder, &
Haverkort, 2009; Hopp, 2015; Jackson & Bobb, 2009; Williams, 2006), to revise initial misinterpretations (for children, see Qi, Fisher, & Brown-Schmidt, 2011; Woodard, Pozzan, & Trueswell, 2014; for
elderly adults, see Christianson et al., 2006) and to even learn a novel artificial grammar system
(Kapa & Colombo, 2014). With respect to the latter, some recent studies have suggested that cognitive
benefits that result from prolonged training of cognitive control/conflict resolution skills might have a
beneficial effect on the processing of complex sentences, such as garden-path sentences and structures
that require inhibition of preferred processing strategies in both native speakers and child second language learners (for adults, see Novick, Hussey, Teubner-Rhodes, Harbison, & Bunting, 2014; for child
L2 learners, see Pozzan, Woodard, & Trueswell, 2014).
It is also important to consider how other cognitive limitations might shape grammar acquisition.
For instance, successful processing of long-distance dependencies is believed to depend upon accurate
storage and later re-access of relevant information within working (and long-term) memory (e.g.,
Gibson, 1998; Warren & Gibson, 2002). To the extent that stable individual differences (or developmental/experience differences) can be identified in such a process, they too might be expected to
shape language acquisition profiles and trajectories, perhaps in a manner similar to that observed
here.
Finally, examination (and testing) of other proposed universals would be of interest. Potentially relevant universals include the cross-linguistic tendency for sentential subjects to precede objects
(Comrie, 1989; Dryer, 2013; Greenberg, 1963 (Universal 1); Tomlin, 1986; Whaley, 1997), bear the
thematic role of agent/source (e.g., Bowerman, 1990; Dowty, 1991; Keenan, 1976; Levin &
Rappaport Hovav, 1995), and for agents to be animate and patients inanimate (Comrie, 1989;
Dowty, 1991; Hopper & Thompson, 1980; Langacker, 1987).
3.6. Closing comments
The present work aimed to understand how the demands of real-time parsing and interpretation
impinge upon grammar acquisition. Owing to the need for greater stimulus control, the present study
employed the experimental methods of multi-day acquisition of a miniature artificial language, containing a small sample of nouns and verbs and a morphological system designed to inform aspects of
sentential argument structure. Measures of real-time processing commitments (eye movements during listening) accompanied by analyses of off-line comprehension responses allowed us to identify listeners’ difficulty revising parsing and interpretive commitments – a pattern often observed in the
processing of natural languages. Moreover, a well-documented grammar acquisition profile was also
observed here: learners begin with a universally-motivated heuristic of treating each simple NP as a
separate participant/thematic role in the sentence’s argument structure and then transition into using
language-specific knowledge for parsing and interpretation. Crucially, we show here that these two
phenomena interact in ways expected if the output of real-time parsing procedures serve as input
to further language acquisition (a.k.a., syntactic bootstrapping, Gleitman, 1990). If language-specific
knowledge tends to be positioned serially after the parser has had a chance to analyze the input
according to universal mapping biases, acquisition of this language-specific knowledge will be
delayed, precisely because it will, more often than not, serve to revise rather than guide structural
analyses in real-time.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Alon Hafri and Yi Lin for starring in our videos and Alon Hafri for recording
the experimental sentences. Thanks to Alon Hafri, Sarah Hendry, Jordan Karsch, Jacob Kaufman, Yi Lin,
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
33
Kristina Woodard and Yu Qian Li for their assistance in data collection, transcription and scoring. We
thank Steven Marchette for help with the cluster-based permutation analyses and Lila Gleitman for
helpful comments on this paper. This work was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grant 1-R01-HD-37507.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.03.004.
References
Abutalebi, J. (2008). Neural aspects of second language representation and language control. Acta Psychologica, 128, 466–478.
Altmann, G. T. M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.
Arunachalam, S., & Waxman, S. R. (2010). Meaning from syntax: Evidence from 2-year-olds. Cognition, 114, 442–446.
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–73). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language
acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173–218). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology yearbook III (pp. 255–309).
Bever, T. G. (1970). The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In W. Levelt & G. Flores d’Arcais (Eds.), Advances
in psycholinguistics (pp. 21–50). North-Holland.
Bever, T. G., & Langendoen, T. (1972). The interaction of perception and grammar in linguistic change. In R. Stockwell & R.
MacCaulay (Eds.), Historical linguistics in the perspective of transformational theory (pp. 32–95). Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
31, 175–198.
Booth, J. R., Mac Whinney, B., & Harasaki, Y. (2000). Developmental differences in visual and auditory processing of complex
sentences. Child Development, 71, 981–1003.
Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping semantic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics,
28, 1253–1289.
Boyle, W., Lindell, A. K., & Kidd, E. (2013). Investigating the role of verbal working memory in young children’s sentence
comprehension. Language Learning, 63, 211–242.
Brown, R. (1957). Linguistic determinism and the part of speech. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 1–5.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234–272.
Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C. (2010). Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden-paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for
developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 41–61.
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Holland: Foris Publications (Reprinted from 7th Ed.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993).
Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ ‘‘Good-Enough’’ interpretations of
garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Memory and Language Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from
language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491–511.
Culbertson, J., Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (2012). Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition, 122, 306–329.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.
Dryer, M. S. (2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures
online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <http://wals.info/chapter/81> Accessed 17.04.14.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory. A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University
(Reprinted from Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1999).
Engelhardt, P., Bailey, K., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean Maxim of Quantity? Journal of
Memory and Language, 54, 554–573.
Engelhardt, P. E., & Ferreira, F. (2013). Do speakers articulate over-described modifiers differently from modifiers that are
required by context?: Implications for models of reference production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 1–11.
Fedzechkina, M., Jaeger, T. F., & Newport, E. L. (2012). Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient
communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 17897–17902.
Feldman, H., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Gleitman, L. R. (1978). Beyond Herodotus: The creation of language by linguistically deprived
deaf children. In A. Lock (Ed.), Action, symbol, and gesture: The emergence of language (pp. 351–414). New York: Academic
Press.
Felser, C., Marinis, T., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment.
Language Acquisition, 11, 127–163.
Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
34
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Ferreira, F., Foucart, A., & Engelhardt, P. E. (2013). Language processing in the visual world: Effects of preview, visual complexity,
and prediction. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 165–182.
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The good enough approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1,
71–83.
Fisher, C. (1996). Structural limits on verb mapping: The role of analogy in children’s interpretations of sentences. Cognitive
Psychology, 31, 41–81.
Fisher, C., Gertner, Y., Scott, R. M., & Yuan, S. (2010). Syntactic bootstrapping. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1,
143–149.
Fisher, C., Hall, D. G., Rakowitz, S., & Gleitman, L. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual
constraints on vocabulary growth. Lingua, 92, 333–375.
Fodor, J., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to the psycholinguistics of generative
grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1992). Language transfer in language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gertner, Y., & Fisher, C. (2012). Predicted errors in children’s early sentence comprehension. Cognition, 124, 85–94.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., Brink, K., Bergen, L., Lim, E., & Saxe, R. (2013). A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word order
variation. Psychological Science, 24, 1079–1088.
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L. R., & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition, 73, 135–176.
Gleitman, L. R. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition, 1, 3–55.
Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2005). Hard words. Language Learning and Development,
1, 23–64.
Göksun, T., Küntay, A. C., & Naigles, L. R. (2008). Turkish children use morphosyntactic bootstrapping in interpreting verb
meaning. Journal of Child Language, 35, 291–323.
Goldberg, A. (2001). Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: the role of information structure in argument
distribution. Language Science, 23, 503–524.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). The resilience of language. New York: Psychology Press.
Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg
(Ed.), Universals of human language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hall, D. G., Lee, S. C., & Bélanger, J. (2001). Young children’s use of syntactic cues to learn proper names and count nouns.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 298–307.
Havik, E., Roberts, L., Van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject – Object ambiguities in the L2: A
self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73–112.
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: OUP.
Hawkins, J. A. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: OUP.
Hawkins, J. A. (2012). Patterns of asymmetry in argument structure across languages: Some principles and puzzles. In P.
Suihkonen, B. Comrie, & V. Solovyev (Eds.), Argument structure and grammatical relations: A crosslinguistic typology
(pp. 133–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hopp, H. (2015). Individual differences in the second language processing of object–subject ambiguities. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 36, 129–173.
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299.
Howard, M. W., & Kahana, M. J. (1999). Contextual variability and serial position effects in free recall. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 923–941.
Huang, Y., Zheng, X., Meng, X., & Snedeker, J. (2013). Assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin
passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 589–606.
Hudson Kam, C. L. H., & Newport, E. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in
language formation and change. Language Learning, 1, 151–195.
Hudson Kam, C. L. H., & Newport, E. L. (2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive
Psychology, 59, 30–66.
Hurewitz, F., Brown-Schmidt, S., Thorpe, K., Gleitman, L. R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). One frog, two frog, red frog, blue frog:
Factors affecting children’s syntactic choices in production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29,
597–626.
Jackson, C. N., & Bobb, S. C. (2009). The processing and comprehension of wh-questions among second language speakers of
German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 603–636.
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society,
102, 199–226.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing research.
Language Learning, 46, 286–324.
Kapa, L. L., & Colombo, J. (2014). Executive function predicts artificial language learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 7,
237–252.
Katz, B., Baker, G., & MacNamara, J. (1974). What’s in a name? On the child’s acquisition of proper and common nouns. Child
Development, 45, 269–273.
Kaushanskaya, M., & Marian, V. (2009). Bilingualism reduces native-language interference during novel-word learning. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 829–835.
Keenan, E. L. (1976). Towards a universal definition of ‘‘subject’’. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.
Kidd, E., Stewart, A. J., & Serratrice, L. (2011). Children do not overcome lexical biases where adults do: The role of the referential
scene in garden-path recovery. Journal of Child Language, 38, 222–234.
Klatt, D. H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 59, 1208–1221.
Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
35
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lee, J., & Naigles, L. (2008). Mandarin learners use syntactic bootstrapping in verb acquisition. Cognition, 106, 1028–1037.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity at the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native Spanish
speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 447–464.
Lidz, J., White, A. S., & Baier, R. (submitted for publication). The role of incremental parsing in syntactically conditioned word
learning.
Lidz, J., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (2003). Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of universal
grammar. Cognition, 87, 151–178.
Liittschwager, J., & Markman, E. M. (1993). Young children’s understanding of proper versus common nouns. Poster presented at
the biennial meeting of the society for research in child development, New Orleans, LA.
Lombardi, L., & Potter, M. C. (1992). The regeneration of syntax in short term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 31,
713–733.
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.
Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 164,
177–190.
Medina, T. N., Snedeker, J., Trueswell, J. C., & Gleitman, L. R. (2011). How words can and cannot be learned by observation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 9014–9019.
Montgomery, J. W., Magimairaj, B. M., & O’Malley, M. H. (2008). Role of working memory in typically developing children’s
complex sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 331–354.
Murasugi, K., Hasimoto, T., & Kato, S. (2004). On the acquisition of causatives in Japanese. Paper presented at the 28th annual
Boston university conference on language development, Boston, MA.
Murdock, B. B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482–488.
Naigles, L. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language, 17, 357–374.
Naigles, L. R., Fowler, A., & Helm, A. (1992). Developmental shifts in the construction of verb meanings. Cognitive Development, 7,
403–428.
Naigles, L., Gleitman, G., & Gleitman, L. (1993). Children acquire word meaning components from syntactic evidence. In E. Dromi
(Ed.). Language and cognition: A developmental perspective (Vol. 5, pp. 104–140). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.
Nappa, R., Wessell, A., McEldoon, K. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2009). Use of speaker’s gaze and syntax in verb learning.
Language Learning and Development, 5, 203–234.
Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Noble, C., Theakston, A. L., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2010). Comprehension of intransitive argument structure: The first noun as causal
agent bias. Paper presented at the 35th annual Boston university conference on language development, Boston, MA.
Novick, J. M., Hussey, E., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Harbison, J. I., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Clearing the garden-path: Improving
sentence processing through cognitive control training. Language Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 186–217.
Novick, J. M., Thompson-Schill, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2008). Putting lexical constraints in context into the visual-world paradigm.
Cognition, 107, 850–903.
Omaki, A., Davidson White, I., Goro, T., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2014). No fear of commitment: Children’s incremental
interpretation in English and Japanese wh-questions. Language Learning and Development, 10, 206–233.
Omaki, A., & Lidz, J. (2015). Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition, 22,
158–192.
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2005). Processability, typological distance and L1 transfer. In M.
Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 85–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1990). Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 29,
633–654.
Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2013). Online processing of English garden-path sentences by L2 learners: A visual world study.
Poster presented at the 26th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Columbia, SC.
Pozzan, L., Woodard, K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2014). Executive functions predictors of learners’ language processing abilities: A
training study. Paper presented at the 39th annual Boston university conference for language development, Boston, MA.
Pozzan, L., Gleitman, L. R., & Trueswell, J. C. (in press). Semantic ambiguity and syntactic bootstrapping: The case of conjoinedsubject intransitive sentences. Language Learning and Development.
Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Qi, Z., Fisher, C., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2011). On recovering from ‘kindergarten path’ errors: Referential context and executive
functioning influence children’s online ambiguity resolution. Paper presented at the 17th annual AMLaP conference, Paris,
France.
Ramscar, M., Yarlett, D., Dye, M., Denny, K., & Thorpe, K. (2010). The Effects of Feature-Label-Order and their implications for
symbolic learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 909–957.
Roberts, L., & Felser, C. (2011). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 32, 299–331.
Scott, R. M., & Fisher, C. (2009). 2-year-olds use distributional cues to interpret transitivity-alternating verbs. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 24, 777–803.
Slobin, D., & Bever, T. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections.
Cognition, 12, 229–265.
Smith, L., Jones, S., & Landau, B. (1992). Count nouns, adjectives, and perceptual properties in novel word interpretations.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 273–286.
Snedeker, J., & Gleitman, L. R. (2004). Why it is hard to label our concepts. In G. Hall & S. R. Waxman (Eds.), Weaving a lexicon
(pp. 257–294). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004
36
L. Pozzan, J.C. Trueswell / Cognitive Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions: The role of lexical-biases and referential
scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 238–299.
Sundara, M., Demuth, K., & Kuhl, P. K. (2011). Sentence-position effects on children’s perception and production of English third
person singular. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 55–72.
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2006). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension. In M. J. Traxler & M. A.
Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 863–900). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Press.
Tomasello, M., & Kruger, A. (1992). Joint attention on actions: Acquiring verbs in ostensive and non-ostensive contexts. Journal
of Child Language, 19, 311–333.
Tomlin, R. S. (1986). Basic word order: Functional principles. London: CroonHelm.
Trueswell, J. C., Kaufman, D., Hafri, A., & Lidz, J. (2012). Development of parsing abilities interacts with grammar learning:
Evidence from Tagalog and Kannada. In A. K. Biller, E. Y. Chung, & A. E. Kimball (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th annual Boston
University conference on language development (pp. 620–632). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Trueswell, J. C., Medina, T. N., Hafri, A., & Gleitman, L. R. (2013). Propose but verify: Fast mapping meets cross-situational word
learning. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 126–156.
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing
in young children. Cognition, 73, 89–134.
Turk, A., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2007). Phrase-final lengthening in American English. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 445–472.
Van Patten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79–112.
Weighall, A. R. (2008). The kindergarten-path effect revisited: Children’s use of context in processing structural ambiguities.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 75–95.
Whaley, L. J. (1997). Introduction to linguistic typology: The unity and diversity of language. London: Sage Publications.
White, A. S., Baier, R., & Lidz, J. (2011). Prediction and sub-categorization frame frequency in the developing parser. Paper
presented at the 24th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Stanford, CA.
Wightman, C. W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Osterdorf, M., & Price, P. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase
boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 1707–1717.
Williams, J. N. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
9, 71–81.
Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and
plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 1–28.
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional
learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 165–209.
Woodard, K., Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2014). Mapping the kindergarten-path: Cognitive predictors of child sentence
processing. Poster presented at the 27th CUNY annual conference on sentence processing, Columbus, Ohio.
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yang, C. (2004). Universal grammar, statistics, or both. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 451–456.
Yang, C. (2012). Computational models of syntactic acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3, 205–213.
Yuan, S., & Fisher, C. (2009). ‘‘Really? She blicked the baby?’’: Two-year-olds learn combinatorial facts about verbs by listening.
Psychological Science, 20, 619–626.
Yuan, S., Fisher, C., & Snedeker, J. (2012). Counting the nouns: Simple structural cues to verb meaning. Child Development, 83(4),
1382–1399.
Zelazo, P. D., & Frye, D. (1998). Cognitive complexity and control. The development of executive function in childhood. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 121–126.
Please cite this article in press as: Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. Revise and resubmit: How real-time parsing limitations
influence
grammar
acquisition.
Cognitive
Psychology
(2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cogpsych.2015.03.004